====================== HES POSTING ================== 
 
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Robert S. Goldfarb wrote: 
.. . . 
> I have an article that has been accepted by the Journal of Economic 
> Methodology entitled "Now You See It, Now You Don't: Emerging Contrary 
> Results in Economics." The article focusses on empirical literatures in 
> which an empirical result is first established, but later on conflicting 
> evidence seems to emerge. 
 
Yes, a dialectic process that is a suitable object of historical and other 
study.  I daresay that is the nature of argument in general, not only of 
empirical literatures; in other words, the "empirical literatures" of 
economics that Robert studies are arguments. 
 
For another class of examples: 
In the USAmerican legal system (at least), an indictment "establishes" 
something --rather firmly, for many people who read about it in the 
newspaper.  Later on, conflicting evidence emerges.  In significant part, 
the indictment on the one hand *causes* the conflicting evidence to emerge 
on the other hand. 
 
Back to empirical economics: 
Suppose it is easy for the first quant-empirical "result" on some issue to 
become "established"; the q-e group of economists, at least, forms first 
impressions easily.  So *confirming* evidence is uninteresting to 
reviewers and editors; they judge it unworthy of publication.  But it is 
hard for a later and contrary result to become established; first 
impressions hang on tenaciously.  So *overturning* evidence is interesting 
to reviewers and editors; it gets published; indeed, because that first 
result is tenacious, overturning evidence gets published again and again. 
 
----Paul 
 
Paul Wendt, Watertown MA 
asst.editor, HES e-information services (history of economics) 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]