tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2210395876281973177.post1113369218542140058..comments2023-09-05T02:06:11.217-07:00Comments on Oxford Sociology: David Byrne on Mills on Byrne on quantitative methodsColinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03430614811751115687noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2210395876281973177.post-71628398006414432862013-06-08T04:37:46.476-07:002013-06-08T04:37:46.476-07:00Four thoughts after a quick read of DB's contr...Four thoughts after a quick read of DB's contribution.<br /><br />1. The way he knocks economics is disgraceful arrogance. After all it's the discipline that's produced Keynes, Marshall, Schumpeter, Walras, Samuelson, Arrow etc. Not too shabby to me. <br /><br />2. DB's is a path to obscurantism. If he thinks we're going to engage students by introducing lectures on non-linear dynamics and QCA he's kidding himself. Most social scientific problems aren't that complex and can be cracked using the standard statistical tool kit. Attribution of complexity to a social problem is too often an implicit admission of confusion by the analyst.<br /><br />3. Where's the beef? I can point to a multitude of examples where standard statistical analysis has made a contribution to the advancement of sociological knowledge. When QCA, agent based modelling or any of DB's other pet methods make similar contributions I'll take them more seriously.<br /><br />4. The attack on RCTs is shameful. Why are RCTs good for the evaluation of medicines on complex systems like the human body but not for evaluating the effects of policies on communities. Or perhaps DB would like to return us to the age of quackery when we blindly trusted the hunches of medics?<br />I look forward to your response Colin.matthew bondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00448822552649968140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2210395876281973177.post-4841280920321409602013-06-08T04:37:16.130-07:002013-06-08T04:37:16.130-07:00Four thoughts after a quick read of DB's contr...Four thoughts after a quick read of DB's contribution.<br /><br />1. The way he knocks economics is disgraceful arrogance. After all it's the discipline that's produced Keynes, Marshall, Schumpeter, Walras, Samuelson, Arrow etc. Not too shabby to me. <br /><br />2. DB's is a path to obscurantism. If he thinks we're going to engage students by introducing lectures on non-linear dynamics and QCA he's kidding himself. Most social scientific problems aren't that complex and can be cracked using the standard statistical tool kit. Attribution of complexity to a social problem is too often an implicit admission of confusion by the analyst.<br /><br />3. Where's the beef? I can point to a multitude of examples where standard statistical analysis has made a contribution to the advancement of sociological knowledge. When QCA, agent based modelling or any of DB's other pet methods make similar contributions I'll take them more seriously.<br /><br />4. The attack on RCTs is shameful. Why are RCTs good for the evaluation of medicines on complex systems like the human body but not for evaluating the effects of policies on communities. Or perhaps DB would like to return us to the age of quackery when we blindly trusted the hunches of medics?<br />I look forward to your response Colin.matthew bondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00448822552649968140noreply@blogger.com