If there's a question that we have substantial disagreement in terms of whether or not its premise is valid and whether or not it meets the criteria of being answerable, but we cannot edit it without changing it dramatically, what should we do?


What is the evidence that econometrics has empirical value?

Economies are extremely complex systems with many variables, not to mention the fact that they emerge from the interactions of complex beings. I agree that economies have certain underlying principles, but I remain skeptical of the overall value of econometrics as a science.

A truly useful econometrics would be a valuable tool in predicting the future behavior of the economy, particularly in predicting shocks like the recent financial crisis and Great Recession. But it did not happen.

If econometrics can't predict the future, how do we know it even effectively describes the past? What is the evidence that it has empirical value?

to me should be best rewritten as a series of questions along the lines of:

What are some pieces of empirical evidence that support econometric's predictive value?

Relating to macroeconomics:

Given that economies are extremely complex systems with many variables, not to mention the fact that they emerge from the interactions of complex beings, what predictions can be made by econometric systems, and how can they be tested?

Are there any meta-studies that catalog historical predictions and accuracies under differente econometric analyses?

With each subsequent question on a different discipline or subfield.


Ask a new question.

The intent of the original question should be preserved, and it can be downvoted or closed accordingly.


Vote to close it.

You should not edit a question to change the OP's intent. Please do read the guidelines if you are at all unsure about that. Write your own question if you have a different intent to the OP.

The editing guidelines say explicitly:

clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning)

Putting an unsuitable question on hold, which is what voting to close does, gives the OP chance to edit the question into shape. That way, askers can learn how to ask better questions.

At the same time, putting it on hold helps answerers by delaying the opportunity to answer, so they don't answer a bad question; this avoids situations where we get an answer to the bad question which then doesn't fit the edited and reopened question.

Use comments to get clarification from the OP, and to guide them to editing a better answer: or at least, making their intent more explicit in their comments, so that the question can then be edited by anyone to incorporate the OP's intent as expressed in their comments. If the comments go on too long, then switch over to chat to discuss the question and get clarification.


Edit the original question.

It's more important to contribute to the discussion and limit duplication than to preserve the intent of the OP.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .