Using the statements and reply in 150 words

In this publication, Mr. Lawson shares the differences in how different individuals view applied economics. He shares that’s Mr. Reddaway looks for “rough and ready” patterns in data and like repeating the aphorism ‘It is better to be roughly right then precisely wrong.”  While Mr. Reddaway looks at data that is published in official sources and felt that it was only rough and ready methods that provided the analysis insight. Mr. Lawson had a different view he felt that the nature of the social reality that formalistic methods were unlikely appropriate to it analysis. Mr. Lawson also shares that he likes to interpret the difference between pure and applied explanation in the context of the explanatory approach (Lawson, 2009).   I found it interesting how Mr. Lawson shared examples of causal and contrast explanations, he uses examples that really have nothing to do with economics and then turns explains how they would be used in economics.  One of the lines that I found interesting and high lighted was “Notice that not just any old contrast will do here. It does have to be surprising, or doubt inducing, or otherwise of interest, from the point of view of current understandings” (Lawson, 2009).  This statement is meant to remind us that we need to understand what we are looking for, what kind of answers are we looking for, what questions are being asked.  There is a lot of information in this publication, and needs another read through for me to truly understand Mr. Lawson’s statement in his conclusion, “social reality is not everywhere a closed system, then successful social analysis remains possible. However, the latter is likely to require the application of not merely analytical methods but also, and perhaps especially, those, like contrast explanation, that are primarily, or more overtly, dialectical in nature. (Lawson, 2009).

Tony Lawson; Applied economics, contrast explanation and asymmetric information. Cambridge J Econ 2009; 33 (3): 405-419. doi: 10.1093/cje/ben047

“There is a lot of information in this publication, and needs another read through for me to truly understand Mr. Lawson’s statement in his conclusion, “social reality is not everywhere a closed system, then successful social analysis remains possible. However, the latter is likely to require the application of not merely analytical methods but also, and perhaps especially, those, like contrast explanation, that are primarily, or more overtly, dialectical in nature. (Lawson, 2009).”

I think he is saying that in much social analysis that empirical research is not sufficient – that you must use techniques beyond the scientific method. This is true in economics.