Tullock on Motivated Inquiry: Expert-Induced Uncertainty Disguised as Risk

32 Pages Posted: 4 Nov 2010

See all articles by David M. Levy

David M. Levy

George Mason University

Sandra J. Peart

University of Richmond - Jepson School of Leadership Studies

Date Written: November 3, 2010

Abstract

Gordon Tullock denied the scientific status to economics because economists can trade results with the subject of our analysis, e.g., “you can have a low estimate for nothing but a high one will cost you something.” We suppose this to be the fate all disciplines in which the results matter to those we study. When the trading is nontransparent then there is no reason to believe that the sampling distribution of the estimates will be what it is believed to be. To the extent these estimates are employed in decision making we face the problem of uncertainty which we believe to be risky. The ludicrous number of AAA ratings of securities is case in point. Taking trading between experts and subjects as inevitable, we propose to ask if the trade is fair. When scientific unanimity fails, can a Rawlsian unanimity replace it?

Suggested Citation

Levy, David Milton and Peart, Sandra J., Tullock on Motivated Inquiry: Expert-Induced Uncertainty Disguised as Risk (November 3, 2010). Public Choice, Forthcoming; GMU Working Paper in Economics No. 10-35. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1702674

David Milton Levy (Contact Author)

George Mason University ( email )

Carow Hall
Fairfax, VA 22030
United States
703-993-2319 (Phone)

Sandra J. Peart

University of Richmond - Jepson School of Leadership Studies ( email )

Jepson Hall
Richmond, VA 23173
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
30
Abstract Views
320
PlumX Metrics