SATURDAY, MAY 4, 2013
Interlude—With apologies, till Tuesday: Doggone it!
We won’t be able to finish our current series until we return to our sprawling campus on Monday night. On Tuesday morning, we’ll address the following question:
How clearly did Professors Reinhart and Rogoff describe the “main finding” of their famous study from 2010?
On April 26, the professors discussed their now-famous bungled study in a New York Times op-ed column. At three different points, they described the “fundamental finding” of that influential academic paper.
The professors claimed that their key finding hasn’t been “overturned” by the discovery that they made embarrassing errors in this three-year-old paper. If true, that’s worth knowing, of course.
But how clearly did the professors explain what their “key finding” actually was? It seems to us they were very fuzzy—and it seems to us that the New York Times should have required more clarity.
We’ll return to that question on Tuesday morning. We’re sorry for the delay.
For what it’s worth, incoherence is no stranger to our greatest newspapers. Tomorrow, we’ll briefly consider a new piece from the New York Times’ Book Review section. To peruse that review, just click here.
Incoherence is no stranger to our major newspapers! Tomorrow, a brief side trip to the world of physics. When we rerturn to our sprawling campus, our current series will resume.
Clarity delayed is clarity denied! We’re sorry for the delay.