Economists should listen, and start their papers in a similar fashion:
"While incentives have historically been a subject of economical debate, work over the last few decades has shown that such unpleasant aspects of the human condition can be put aside in favor of mathematical formalisms."
Thank you for your commitment to helping us non-statisticians see through the fog of numbers manipulation.
But this one! “You don’t need a philosophy to determine causation,” they say? That can only be true for the philosophy-deniers. You may not care about philosophy, but it cares about you! Now, you’ve said that in the language of math? Fascinating.
Economists should listen, and start their papers in a similar fashion:
"While incentives have historically been a subject of economical debate, work over the last few decades has shown that such unpleasant aspects of the human condition can be put aside in favor of mathematical formalisms."
Thank you for your commitment to helping us non-statisticians see through the fog of numbers manipulation.
But this one! “You don’t need a philosophy to determine causation,” they say? That can only be true for the philosophy-deniers. You may not care about philosophy, but it cares about you! Now, you’ve said that in the language of math? Fascinating.
Exactly so.