IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jecmet/v7y2001i2p171-181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Introduction: is data mining a methodological problem?

Author

Listed:
  • Roger Backhouse
  • Mary Morgan

Abstract

This survey of the symposium papers argues that the problem of data mining should be of interest to both practicing econometricians and specialists in economic methodology. After summarizing some of the main points to arise in the symposium, it draws on recent work in the philosophy of science to point to parallels between data mining and practices engaged in routinely by experimental scientists. These suggest that data mining might be seen in a more positive light than conventional doubts about it imply.

Suggested Citation

  • Roger Backhouse & Mary Morgan, 2001. "Introduction: is data mining a methodological problem?," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 171-181.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jecmet:v:7:y:2001:i:2:p:171-181
    DOI: 10.1080/13501780050045065
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13501780050045065
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13501780050045065?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521425230, December.
    2. Roger E. Backhouse, 1997. "Truth and Progress in Economic Knowledge," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 766, December.
    3. Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521415019, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas Mayer, 2006. "The Empirical Significance of Econometric Models," Working Papers 620, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    2. Timothy Roth, 2001. "How science proceeds: the role of assumptions in the explanation of phenomena," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 420-422.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roger Backhouse & Andrea Salanti, 1999. "The methodology of macroeconomics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(2), pages 159-169.
    2. Miguel A. Duran, 2007. "Mathematical Needs and Economic Interpretations," Contributions to Political Economy, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 26(1), pages 1-16.
    3. Francesco Guala & Andrea Salanti, 2002. "On the Robustness of Economic Models," Working Papers (-2012) 0208, University of Bergamo, Department of Economics.
    4. Marcel Boumans & Mary Morgan, 2002. "Ceteris paribus conditions: materiality and the application of economic theories," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 11-26.
    5. Roger E. Backhouse & Steven N. Durlauf, 2009. "Robbins on Economic Generalizations and Reality in the Light of Modern Econometrics," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(s1), pages 873-890, October.
    6. Suzuki, Tomo, 2003. "The accounting figuration of business statistics as a foundation for the spread of economic ideas," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 65-95, January.
    7. Kevin D. Hoover, 2016. "The Crisis in Economic Theory: A Review Essay," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(4), pages 1350-1361, December.
    8. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2011. "Economic Models as Analogies," PIER Working Paper Archive 12-001, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    9. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2014. "A Model of Modeling," PIER Working Paper Archive 14-026, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    10. Ole Røgeberg & Morten Nordberg, 2005. "A defence of absurd theories in economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 543-562.
    11. Joshua M. Epstein, 2007. "Agent-Based Computational Models and Generative Social Science," Introductory Chapters, in: Generative Social Science Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling, Princeton University Press.
    12. Giuseppe Garofalo, 2014. "Irreducible complexities: from Gödel and Turing to the paradigm of Imperfect Knowledge Economics," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3463-3474, November.
    13. Smith, Peter, 2009. "Induction, complexity, and economic methodology," MPRA Paper 12693, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Julian Reiss, 2001. "Natural economic quantities and their measurement," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 287-311.
    15. Castle, Emery N., 2000. "The Economics Of Rural Places And Agricultural Economics," 2000 Annual Meeting, June 29-July 1, 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia 36361, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    16. Thomas Mayer, 1998. "Indexed Bonds And Heterogeneous Agents," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 16(1), pages 77-84, January.
    17. Thomas E. Chamberlain, 1998. "On the psychological basis of economics and social psychology," ERSA conference papers ersa98p396, European Regional Science Association.
    18. De Geest, Gerrit, 1996. "The debate on the scientific status of law & economics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(3-5), pages 999-1006, April.
    19. Morten Søberg, 2002. "The Duhem-Quine thesis and experimental economics. A reinterpretation," Discussion Papers 329, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    20. Thomas Mayer, 2006. "The Empirical Significance of Econometric Models," Working Papers 620, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jecmet:v:7:y:2001:i:2:p:171-181. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJEC20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.