All models are wrong.
Since all models are wrong the scientist cannot obtain a “correct” one by excessive elaboration.
All models are wrong, so putting more effort than necessary will not yield the "right" model.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2286841?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Box, G. E., 1976. Science and statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71(356), pp.791-799.
https://gyazo.com/e5b602e972d30ac57218c1ebf7696b01
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/himaginary/20160925/glasner_on_all_models_are_false
Claude.icon
David Glasner took Paul Romer's critique of macroeconomics and made the following assertions.
Macroeconomists counter that "all models are wrong," but microfoundation models have not escaped Lucasian criticism either.
The Friedman assertion that the more important the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions is also used, but the word "simple" should have been used rather than "unrealistic".
The phrase "all models are wrong" originated in a paper by George Box, the gist of which is as follows
Models should aim for a conservative depiction without over-elaboration.
Scientists need to be careful about which mistakes are important.
When applying mathematics, make untrue but useful assumptions.
The usefulness of a statistical technique is not known until it is used.
Major advances in science occur in the back-and-forth between theory and practice.
Modern macroeconomists flaunt advanced mathematical techniques, but they should be a bit more humble if they accept the content of Box's lecture.
All models are wrong - Wikipedia
relevance
Occam's razor
thought economy theory
Relativization of correctness What is correctness?
---
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/すべてのモデルは間違っている using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.