Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7xsfk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T22:49:02.525Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpreting Leamer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Clark Glymour
Clark Glymour
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie-Mellon University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is easy for a professional philosopher who reads Learner's essay “Let's Take the Con Out of Econometrics” to find a great deal in it that seems contentious, cavalier, or objectionable. Philosophers may even be puzzled as to what the fuss is all about. My guess is that the sorts of complaints philosophical readers are likely to make about Learner's paper are more the result of style than substance. The substance is very important.

Type
Discussions
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , October 1985 , pp. 290 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bentler, P. and Bonnett, D. 1980. “Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures.” Psychological Bulletin 88:588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicirelli, V. et al. 1969. Report to the Office of Economic Opportunity. Volumes I & II: The Impact of Head Start: An Evaluation of the Effects of Head Start on Children's Cognitive and Affective Development. Athens, Oh.: Ohio University and Westinghouse Learning Corporation.Google Scholar
James, L. et al. 1982. Causal Analysis: Assumptions, Models and Data. Beverley Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Magidson, J. and Sorbom, D. 1982. “Adjusting for Confounding Factors in Quasi-experiments: Another Reanalysis of the Westinghouse Head Start Evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 4:321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar