(As a side
note, this is the problem with not having enough time. I caught up on that
story very early, and wrote most of that –but was offline. By now, it’s done
the rounds and more. Still, here’s another take)
Oh my!
Regular
readers (yes, you two, I’m talking to you) will remember that I wrote an
article (What happened to the scientific process?) expressing some dismay
regarding what can apparently be published these days, even when failing the
simplest rules of data analysis, the kind that you learn in a two day course if
you work in a lowish operational job.
OK, maybe I
should have rephrased that as “what can apparently be published when it happens to suit what the powerful
want to read”, but that would have been a stronger statement, and all I was
concerned was the (very) poor quality of the analysis.
Still, it
seems that this was small fry. Those who follow macroeconomics at all –or who
follow politics beyond poll-tracking- will probably have heard, either of
Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, or at any rate will have heard of one of
their results, even if they were not named (despite being highly controversial
in Academic circles, it has been treated as consensual by the mainstream media,
aka Very Serious People, who say things like “90% of GDP, the level of debt
that economist recognise as strongly hampering econoc prospects”).
Actually,
since I’ve also been posting about chess, some people have heard of them even
without following economics or politics at all: Kenneth Rogoff is a chess
grandmaster, and articles about him, and his research, have been published in
chess media.