[platz]

> The fog surrounding economic projections, and the other uses and abuses of statistical evidence in politics, might lift at least a little.

The perpetual historical failure of academic economic modelers is a counterexample to this line of thinking; to think non-academically trained folks would fare better is laughable

[Nasrudith]

It might be good for thinking critically however. That could result in a technical truth - if nobody is fooled by models then they won't be used to deceive. If everyone can pick out and point to what is missed or inappropriate models it could and emerging absurdities. I suspect in that regards it is more a way to teach critical thinking.

The informality could be a boon - less reason to stick to the rules of tenure knifefighting.

[trentlott]

I mean, this was the essential point that brought about chaos theory, right?

Rounding wind speeds down at the force of a butterfly flap caused significant deviations for known weather patterns.

Having people half-ass assumptions because they read about a supply/demand curve once and can scrap DJIA data in order to gamble their 15k savings is unlikely to be widespread, but definitely something to consider if that is your argument.

However, it would still least breed familiarity. I take your point that this will probably not help things and...well, I guess I've run out of steam in my own comment.

Ignorance is bad, and staying in ivory towers will end badly. The obvious route for education will likely only foster arrogance and cynicism. What's the third way? Make everyone read Kant and write "Marx was a philosopher, not an economist" 100 times?