Econometric Forecasting and the Science Court

5 Pages Posted: 9 Feb 2005 Last revised: 29 Jul 2008

See all articles by J. Scott Armstrong

J. Scott Armstrong

University of Pennsylvania - Marketing Department


The science court provides safeguards. Because most of the seven scientists took exception to the conclusions in Folklore versus Fact, one gains confidence that the evidence against these conclusions has been fairly presented. However, little new evidence was generated. The science court produced a number of recommendations - some agreeing with those in Folklore versus Fact, and others disagreeing. The point of most agreement was that econometricians should use simpler methods. In my opinion, the science court provides a useful procedure to increase the value of advocacy. Note, however, that the method of multiple hypotheses, as employed in Folklore versus Fact, led to an efficient and apparently unbiased collection of the evidence (additional evidence by the science court tended to support the conclusions in Folklore versus Fact). And the collection of evidence is a key function of the scientists. Once this is done, the scientist can promote his findings but this can also be done by the readers, who are the ultimate judges in our science court.

Keywords: Econometric, forecasting, science court, folklore vs. fact

Suggested Citation

Armstrong, J. Scott, Econometric Forecasting and the Science Court. Journal of Business, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 595-600, 1978. Available at SSRN:

J. Scott Armstrong (Contact Author)

University of Pennsylvania - Marketing Department ( email )

700 Jon M. Huntsman Hall
3730 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6340
United States
215-898-5087 (Phone)
215-898-2534 (Fax)


Register to save articles to
your library


Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics