= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Perplexed comments on Some Heuristics for Evaluating the Soundness of the Academic Mainstream in Unfamiliar Fields - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (272)
But you can't "confirm or disprove" your heuristics unless you have independent access to the truth about the health of the various academic disciplines. All you can do is to compare the opinions generated by your heuristics with other people's opinions.
For what it's worth, personally, I agree with most of your opinions, but have reservations about the heuristics. Two places where I disagree with your opinions are macroeconomics and climate modeling. Both are politicized, and it shows up in the press-release science, but I think that anyone familiar with the fields is capable of filtering out that noise. So, in those fields, I think it is safe to trust the orthodox positions.
I can't even identify the orthodox positions in macroeconomics.
Hell Yes!
Macroeconomics is either a construction site or a graveyard
Really? If you were to take the four top-selling Macroeconomics textbooks for undergrad Econ majors, or the four top-selling Macroeconomics textbooks for economics graduate schools, those books would be presenting different models? That would surprise me, though I have to admit, I haven't looked at a modern econ textbook in thirty years.