[peatmoss]

I studiously avoided making a normative statement that economics should take over this role. Any personal preferences I have here are separate from my beliefs about what I predict to happen. :-)

I ~agree with you about the quality of econ papers. In some cases, I see the quantitative facility of econ papers as being better than similar studies executed by e.g. sociologists. But in some cases, flashy quant skills are used to distract from more fundamental issues.

Assuming my prediction that social science research shifts to econ comes to pass, I think the natural pressure will be to drag econ's present quality bar downward.

[graemep]

> But in some cases, flashy quant skills are used to distract from more fundamental issues.

I agree, I sometimes thing economists like quantitive approaches because it makes them feel like "real scientists" and numbers have an air of credibility.

It look a lot of arguing to let my MSc dissertation supervisor let me do one on financial theory (which I am good at) rather than econometrics (which i struggled with).

[BehindBlueEyes]

Worst offenders of liking quant approches to feel like real scientists may be when psychologists use formulas to describe their theory like they're a mathematician. All it does is making their theories obtuse, while no math actually happens...

I think the problem is more with the institutions and incentives e.g. to publish a lot for funding, than it is with social sciences as a thing. Qual stuff is much lower effort... And to be clear I think Qual has a place there, it just shouldn't be the only thing and it certainly shouldn't be masquerading as quant... But going all quant in social sciences could quickly become harmful if it isn't tempered with some qual/experiential studies. There needs to be a better balance imho.

[Tarsul]

Love your use of ~ in "~agree". Such a nice shortcut. Might steal that :D