Attend Spring Meetings on development topics from Apr 18-23. Comment and engage with experts. Calendar of Events

Syndicate content

Add new comment

Martin, what I want you to write about is why you are making such a big issue out of the least important part of this whole conversation. 1) Yes its important to get the math right and it is good to find where the math errors were, wherever they were. But I don't understand how you can find more fault with RM after their valiant efforts to recreate what PK did, apparently without any support from PK despite numerous requests. While recognizing that there were errors in RM, why is there not equal blame to PK for not making their math and data available which would have avoided this whole situation in the first place. 2) As I understand RMs underlying point on the math, the calculations involved in work like this is so complex there is significant chance that someone's got it wrong. I think the fact that it took RM so long and then PK so long again to sort through all this only makes that point. If the errors were easy to avoid, why did it take so long to find them, especially given all the attention you claim was being given to their paper? 3) Finally, why is getting the math right on a calculation that does not do what it claims--establish causality--apparently more important than the original claim? In other words, why are you so interested in pressing this particular point? It seems to me the equivalent of US budget hawks complaining about the foreign aid budget.