Skip to main content

View Diary: Wall of Shame: Republicans Lose Intellectual Cover for Austerity/Spending-Cut Policies (87 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't understand (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hester, whenwego, aguadito, ColoTim, quill

    Aren't you supposed to release your underlying raw data and the models you used to demonstrate your assertion in an academic paper? Since when were Cheney standards allowed in academia ("there's been reporting...")?

    I mean, freaking Microsoft Excel?!? That's not exactly rocket scientist software. Anyone reasonably proficient in Excel given access to their spreadsheets would have been able to spot it. Why did they not release it along with the report? How did that pass the smell test on day one?

    This is a massive, massive academic and political scandal, given the political and budgetary implications of their paper, and R&R should be reprimanded and forced to issue a humiliating public mea culpa and kiss Paul Krugman's ass.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 05:46:12 AM PDT

    •  check out (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kovie, quill

      the picture I just added to the diary entry.

      here's a copy:

      http://twitpic.com/...

      :)

      REVENGE OF CLIPPY!!

      Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

      by aguadito on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:28:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  it was Cheney model until recently (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aguadito

      Up until very recently most scientists kept their data, code and even methods to themselves. In highly competitive fields, nobody shared. If challenged, they might be forced to reveal it to a trusted colleague or neutral party. Back then, if you suspected fraud, especially in a respected senior scientist, often the only recourse was to replicate the original research (on your own dime, since replication studies are generally unfundable).

      History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx

      by quill on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:10:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Raw data, models and formulae were (0+ / 0-)

        proprietary? Except for corporate-backed intellectual property studies, how could this be allowable? You could just make anything up and get away with it.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:18:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  because integrity (0+ / 0-)

          There is a long held conceit in academia that researchers are neutral arbiters of truth and a default assumption that nobody is biased or will cheat (I'm overstating this, but that's the basic gist). In theory this should be true, in practice it is not.

          That and the ancient notion that your data is your intellectual property. Making your data public is like giving your stuff to people (most importantly your rivals) for free.

          Btw these attitudes vary quite a bit depending on the field, with some being more open than others.

          History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx

          by quill on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:32:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have a BS in history (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            quill

            Which doesn't make me a historian but did teach me that to to be a historian you have to exhaustively cite each and every one of your sources, be they primary, secondary or tertiary, if you intend to use them. Historians and others in the social sciences don't get to hide their data. Mathematicians don't get to hide their equations. I don't see why economists should be able to.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:41:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the dismal science? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kovie, New Rule

              I don't know anything about how economics is run as a science. I'm talking about biology, physics, psychology, etc. But then I question whether economics should be called a science, given that the theory is so inherently political and ideological in nature. Take Reinhart and Rogoff as prime examples.

              History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx

              by quill on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:57:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  there's a blog (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kovie, quill

                that you might be reallly interested in, check it out

                It goes into a thorough analysis and critique of the state of the field of economics (including comparisons to physics and other harder sciences)

                Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

                by aguadito on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:05:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Given that economics is such a "soft" science (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  quill

                  that happens to also be vulnerable to external manipulation, it seems self-evident that academic papers published in it MUST disclose all data and models used to reach conclusions to be taken seriously.

                  "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                  by kovie on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:13:14 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  great blog! (0+ / 0-)

                  History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx

                  by quill on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 11:04:35 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site