Tom Pepinsky

Author: tompepinsky

  • Paul Romer and the Principles of Academic Engagement

    Paul Romer has written a couple of really biting commentaries on the contemporary state of economic theory (this and this). The enemy is “mathiness,” a term he employed—if not coined—in a recent paper in the American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings.

    Like mathematical theory, mathiness uses a mixture of words and symbols, but instead of making tight links, it leaves ample room for slippage between statements in natural versus formal language and between statements with theoretical as opposed to empirical content.

    There’s a lot more to this debate, and it will no doubt continue to unfold in the coming weeks. (And in the academic economics blogosphere, no less!) The debate among economic theorists has very little relevance for how to do contemporary political science research, but it will still be interesting to follow for anyone interested in the history of economic theory, the politics of macroeconomic policymaking, and so forth. I do agree that reading Romer’s interpretation of the point of Milton Friedman’s “The Methodology of Positive Economics” helps me to put it in a new light.

    What catches my eye, though, is how Romer describes the foundations of academic collaboration in a science of economics.

    a) We trust that what each person says is an honest account of what he or she thinks is true.
    b) We all recognize that reasonable people can differ and that no one has privileged access to the truth.
    c) We take seriously the claims of people who disagree with us.
    d) We are ready to admit that others might be right that each of us might be wrong.
    e) In our discussions, claims that are recognized by a clear plurality of members of the community by as being better supported by logic and evidence are the ones that are provisionally accepted as being true.
    f) In judging what constitutes a “clear plurality,” we put more weight on the views of people who have more status in the community and are recognized as having more expertise on the topic.
    g) We update the status of a members of our community on the basis of his or her contribution to progress a clearer understanding of what is true, not on the basis of “unwavering conviction” or “loyalty to the team.”
    h) We shun, or exclude from the community, someone who reveals the he or she is not committed to these working principles.

    I’m not sure I agree about the place of experts with status in the community: it puts a heavy burden on the experts to be self-critical in a way that I just don’t think is realistic. But in general this seems like a good set of principles. If we hold the commentary on experts and status aside, in fact, Romer’s principles can be simplified into just four.

    Modified Principles for Academic Engagement
    1. Mostly everyone is really smart
    2. Mostly everyone is really trying
    3. Mostly everyone is usually wrong
    4. All of these apply to you too, especially 3

  • Explain How New Orleans Instrumental No. 1 Relates to Amos Yee

    Like many devotees of NPR’s Morning Edition, one of my favorite hobbies is to guess the connection between a story and the short music clip that follows it. There is often a clever connection, perhaps with a lyric in the song or the song’s title and a major theme in the story, like “Canadian Judge Grants Former Guantanamo Inmate Bail” being followed by Sufjan Stevens’ “Fourth of July.” It’s my version of the morning crossword puzzle.

    This morning Morning Edition covered the ongoing case of Amos Yee, a Singaporean blogger who posted an amazing video criticizing the late Lee Kuan Yew after he died, inviting current PM Lee Hsien Loong to “come at me, motherf***er” and adding several other sharp criticisms. Listen here:

    Yee is currently on trial, with most of the charges tied to insults against Christianity that he made in the course of the video.

    The music clip after the Amos Yee story is incredibly puzzling, however. It is R.E.M.’s “New Orleans Instrumental No. 1,” which has no words, and a title that’s unrelated in any way to Amos Yee, Singapore, protest, free speech, or anything similar. It doesn’t compute. What makes this more interesting to me is that that song comes from an album that has plenty of songs that might work. Say, “Ignoreland“, or “Monty Got a Raw Deal.” Each of these would have been fine.

    As I write this, though, something occurs to me. But what if that’s the point??? Did NPR just subtly communicate a critique of government censorship by choosing a bland, anodyne interlude instead of something more meaningful? If so, then bravo!

    For what it’s worth, the ideal R.E.M. song to showcase a mix of rebellion the and boundless optimism of youth in a time of political change would be, naturally, this one:

    For something more overtly confrontational and political—the song that always runs through my head when I’m in Singapore—then perhaps some early Pearl Jam would be better: