Jared Bernstein — Evidence: Is It Really Overrated?

A few weeks ago, during the evidentiary dustup between Piketty and the FT, I quasi-favorably quoted a Matt Yglesias line re empirical evidence being overrated. A number of readers were understandably unhappy with that assertion, arguing that they come here to OTE for fact-based analysis based on empirical evidence (with, admittedly, a fair bit a heated, if not overheated, commentary). If facts all of the sudden don’t matter anymore, why not just call it a day and join the Tea Party?

So let me add a bit more nuance. The statement is about the quality and durability of evidence, which is not only varied of course, but, at least in the economic policy world, increasingly problematic by which I mean that a number of developments have significantly lowered the signal-to-noise ratio.

I’d divide the evidence problem into two separable categories. First, statistical issues about what’s “true” and what’s not, and second, ideological ways in which the noise factor is amplified at the expense of the signal.

Jared Bernstein | On the Economy

Evidence: Is It Really Overrated?
Jared Bernstein