Methodological mistakes and econometric consequences
Econometric Methodology is based on logical positivist principles. Since logical positivism has collapsed, it is necessary to re-think these foundations. We show that positivist methodology has led econometricians to a meaningless search for patterns in the data. An alternative methodology which relates observed patterns to real causal structures is proposed
|Date of creation:||30 Aug 2012|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||Published in International Econometric Review 2.4(2012): pp. 99-122|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany|
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Asad Zaman, 2010.
"Causal Relations via Econometrics,"
International Econometric Review (IER),
Econometric Research Association, vol. 2(1), pages 36-56, April.
- Atiq-ur-Rehman, Atiq-ur-Rehman & Zaman, Asad, 2009.
"Impact of Model Specification Decisions on Unit Root Tests,"
19963, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Atiq-ur-Rehman, 2011. "Impact of Model Specification Decisions on Unit Root Tests," International Econometric Review (IER), Econometric Research Association, vol. 3(2), pages 22-33, September.
- Leamer, Edward E, 1983.
"Let's Take the Con Out of Econometrics,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 73(1), pages 31-43, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:41032. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Joachim Winter)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.