When trying to assess a validity of a claim relying on statistics, I was taught (in the school of epidemiology) that the scale to use is “the pyramid of evidence“
However, when conducting a discussion in the field of economics or political science, it is often very difficult (to impossible) to recreate a political situation so to allow experimenting.
Since this is the case, my questions are:
- can this be mitigated in any way?
- In what way can (or does) political/economic disciplines build their arguments (using statistics) in a valid way?
The motivation for my question started from reading a discussion about the privatization of the academic system in Israel. e.g: Should the charging of students be the same for all disciplines or different. Should the running of the university be performed by the academic staff or by outside managers - and so on.
One things that appears to happen in the discussion is that the people supporting the privatization (economists mostly) seems to be using statistics of all sorts to support their claims. While the people from the other side of the argument are not as equipped with them (usually people from the humanities).
The economists seems to blame the humanities of not using numeric data. While the humanities accuse the economists of being to speculative - and that the data they bring is open to too many interpretations.
I am trying to understand if these two groups of disciplines can create a more fruitful dialog, or is it just not possible due to the complexity of the subject matter, and the limitation of our control over it.
The following discussion has a nice link in it, but it was stopped quite early:
Also a bunch of good relevant discussion where introduced here:
p.s: Due to the subjectivity of the topic - I am marking this as community wiki.