On the Observability Requirement in Economics as an Axiomatic Science

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven N.S. Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Law Of Demand ◽  
Observable Variable ◽  
The Law

Abstract This paper points out as the only social science that is axiomatic, economics has the power of predicting beyond interpreting. It then explains that in hypothesis testing, the law of demand is the only indispensable axiom in economics, and that quantity demanded is the only non-observable variable that must be retained. After reviewing his disagreements with his peers and colleagues, and his success in predicting the transformation of China, the author argues that the profession has gone astray with the surge in the use of non-observables.

Violation of the Law of Demand

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yakar Kannai ◽  
Larry Selden
Keyword(s):  
Law Of Demand ◽  
The Law

Under the Law: How is your community depicted in the curriculum? Who decides?

2021 ◽  
Vol 102 (5) ◽  
pp. 63-64
Author(s):  
Robert Kim
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Science Standards ◽  
The Law ◽  
School Curricula

A case in California reaffirms that courts are reluctant to intervene when families are concerned about school curricula. In CAPEEM v. Torlakson, parents of Hindu children complained that the state’s history and social science standards are framework discriminated against them by inaccurately and disparingingly representing their faith. Bob Kim describes the plaintiffs’ arguments, the case’s journey through the courts, and how the court’s ruling against the plaintiffs relates to other cases involving objections to school curricula.

Politics and Research: Epistemological Moments

1990 ◽  
Vol 15 (01) ◽  
pp. 149-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adelaide H. Villmoare
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Law And Society ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship

In reading the essays by David M. Trubek and John Esser and Boaventura de Sousa Santos, I thought about what I call epistemological moments that have provided contexts within which to understand the relationship between social science research and politics. I will sketch four moments and suggest that I find one of them more compelling than the others because it speaks particularly to social scientists with critical, democratic ambitions and to Trubek and Esser's concerns about politics and the intellectual vitality of the law and society movement.

A Theorem of the Law of Demand

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Universidad de los Andes Dept. of E Submitter
Keyword(s):  
Law Of Demand ◽  
The Law

scholarly journals Damaging the Case for Improving Social Science Methodology through Misrepresentation: Re-Asserting Confidence in Hypothesis Testing as a Valid Scientific Process

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 136-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Nicholson ◽  
Sean Mccusker
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
Significance Tests ◽  
Hypothesis Tests ◽  
Strong Statement ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
Social Science Methodology ◽  
Reasonable Model

This paper is a response to Gorard's article, ‘Damaging real lives through obstinacy: re-emphasising why significance testing is wrong’ in Sociological Research Online 21(1). For many years Gorard has criticised the way hypothesis tests are used in social science, but recently he has gone much further and argued that the logical basis for hypothesis testing is flawed: that hypothesis testing does not work, even when used properly. We have sympathy with the view that hypothesis testing is often carried out in social science contexts when it should not be, and that outcomes are often described in inappropriate terms, but this does not mean the theory of hypothesis testing, or its use, is flawed per se. There needs to be evidence to support such a contention. Gorard claims that: ‘Anyone knowing the problems, as described over one hundred years, who continues to teach, use or publish significance tests is acting unethically, and knowingly risking the damage that ensues.’ This is a very strong statement which impugns the integrity, not just the competence, of a large number of highly respected academics. We argue that the evidence he puts forward in this paper does not stand up to scrutiny: that the paper misrepresents what hypothesis tests claim to do, and uses a sample size which is far too small to discriminate properly a 10% difference in means in a simulation he constructs. He then claims that this simulates emotive contexts in which a 10% difference would be important to detect, implicitly misrepresenting the simulation as a reasonable model of those contexts.

Empirical Evidence on the Law of Demand

Econometrica ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 1525 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Hardle ◽  
Werner Hildenbrand ◽  
Michael Jerison
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Law Of Demand ◽  
The Law

scholarly journals Editors’ Note

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 285-285
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Significance Testing ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
Scientific Process ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
Social Science Methodology

In 2016 and 2017, Sociological Research Online published the following article and two subsequent responses: Gorard S (2016) Damaging Real Lives Through Obstinacy: Re-emphasising Why Significance Testing is Wrong. Sociological Research Online 21(1): 1–14. DOI: 10.5153/sro.3857 Nicholson J and McCusker S (2016) Damaging the Case for Improving Social Science Methodology Through Misrepresentation: Re-asserting Confidence in Hypothesis Testing as a Valid Scientific Process. Sociological Research Online 21(2): 1–12. DOI: 10.5153/sro.3985 Gorard (2017) Significance Testing is Still Wrong, and Damages Real Lives: A Brief Reply to Spreckelsen and Van Der Horst, and Nicholson and McCusker. Sociological Research Online 22(2): 1–7. DOI: 10.5153/sro.4281 An erratum has been published in the journal to clarify some corrections that had inadvertently been missed ahead of publication of the first article: Erratum to Gorard (2016) Damaging Real lives Through Obstinacy: Re-emphasising Why Significance Testing is Wrong. Sociological Research Online 21(1): 1–14. DOI: 10.1177/1360780417731066 Readers are advised to read the responses to the original article, particularly paragraph 4.7 in Nicholson and McCusker (2016) and paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 in Gorard (2017) in light of the recently published Erratum. The journal apologises for any inconvenience or misunderstanding this may have caused.

scholarly journals How Sociology Perspective Influence Law with a Social Contexts? A Book Review “Pokok-Pokok Sosiologi Hukum”, Prof Dr Soerjono Soekanto SH MA, Rajawali Pers, 269 Pages, ISBN 979-421-131-1

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-256
Author(s):  
Abraham Abraham
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Social Factors ◽  
Social Contexts ◽  
Sociology Of Law ◽  
The Social ◽  
Patterns Of Behavior ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Sociology

sociology of law examines why humans obey the law and why it fails to obey the law and the social factors that influence it. as a relatively new branch of sociology, the science of legal sociology was developed to explain the interrelationships of patterns of behavior and law that cannot yet be explained by other branches of social science.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document