You Say 'Methodology', I Say 'Method'

By -
Folks, don't say 'methodology' when you mean 'method.' You had a method with which you conducted your recent study, not a methodology. 'Methodology' is what you do when you, say, study different ways of doing such a study and compare them.

This may seem like nitpicking, but it is important because it is an exemplar of a general class of problems: the idea that using fancier language somehow makes our results 'deeper' or more 'scientific.' Such a notion is, of course, destructive of real insight, since the blizzard of high-falutin' words serves to obscure rather than to reveal the reality one seeks to explore.

Try goggling 'methodology' and scanning the results: in almost every case on the first couple of pages, either the word 'method' or the word 'methods' could have replaced the word 'methodology' with an increase in clarity.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy7:13 PM

    This may seem like nitpicking, but it is important because it is an exemplar of a general class of problems: the idea that using fancier language somehow makes our results 'deeper' or more 'scientific.'

    I think it would have been clearer if you had used "example" instead of "exemplar," Mr. Fancy Pants.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah7:17 PM

    Yeah, but I meant 'exemplar', not 'example'!

    By the way, did you did algebraic toppology in your game theory course at NYU?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ian Ryan5:26 PM

    Isn't this Bob Murphy's point?

    ReplyDelete
  4. gcallah5:36 PM

    Isn't what Bob Murphy's point, Ian?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ian Ryan12:33 PM

    I seem to remember that Bob made that very same point (against confusing the words "method" and "methodology") in like 5 or more of his lectures with the Mises Institute.

    I came to associate that point so strongly with Bob that it struck me in a really bizarre way when I read this blog post. For a second, I thought that you were Bob or something. Or that I was going insane.

    Also the fact that Bob didn't even bring that up in his response added to the surreal experience that I was going through.

    So admit it. You stole this point from Bob.

    ReplyDelete
  6. gcallah5:28 PM

    Well, Ian, given that Fritz Machkup wrote an entire essay on this 70 years ago, and both Bob and I are "descended" from Machlup through some of our teachers whom Machlup taught, and I don't think it's puzzling that we both make this point!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more