Reply #219: I don't think the analogy is very close

[OnTheOtherHand]

As I understand it, the rational expectations school turned to calibration because conventional econometric approaches weren't "working" with their models. They offered some justifications or rationalizations for this turn, but I don't think anyone disputes that it was a turn.

Bazant's various models of the WTC 1/2 collapses look like standard-issue engineering models to me -- and, as far as I can tell, to most engineers. It's true that they can't be tested against the collapses (or non-collapses) of other buildings like the Twin Towers, so in a sense we're all stuck without the equivalent of "actual econometrics." Maybe that is about as far as you intend the analogy to go.

ETA: Of course I'm not claiming to be an economist or an engineer!