The ladder of social science reasoning, 4 statements in increasing order of generality, or Why didn’t they say they were sorry when it turned out they’d messed up? — Andrew Gelman

Summary:
Reinhart and Rogoff. Why didn't they take responsibility, a student asked Andrew Gelman. Statistics professor Gelman answers:  It wasn't actually about the data in the minds of R & R, so being wrong about it apparently made no significant difference to them. Empirical result? Meh.Rationalists, or just ideologues with a cognitive bias? Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social ScienceThe ladder of social science reasoning, 4 statements in increasing order of generality, or Why didn’t they say they were sorry when it turned out they’d messed up? Andrew Gelman | Professor of Statistics and Political Science and Director of the Applied Statistics Center, Columbia UniversitySee alsoPaper by Mohsen Javdani and Ha-Joon Chang Marginal RevolutionIdeological bias and argument from

Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: Carmen Reinhart, data, economic methodology, empirical results, Kenneth Rogoff, public responsibility, Reinhart and Rogoff, Rogoff and Reinhart

This could be interesting, too:

Mike Norman writes The old guard trying to stay relevant and failing — Bill Mitchell

Mike Norman writes Bill Mitchell — Discredited academic dinosaurs continue to seek relevance

Mike Norman writes Clint Ballinger — Austerity in a Time of Plenty: : The “domestic default” bogeyman = More bad statistics from Reinhart & Rogoff

Mike Norman writes How economics can raise its game — Tim Harford