What is an "intellectual" fixing of an error instead of a plain-vanilla fixing of an error?

I'm talking about identifying an error and writing a better idea. That's different than e.g. spending 50 years working on the better idea or somehow getting others to.

What's the % chance that he is correct? AFAIK he has been saying the same thing for years.

Yeah it's been staying the same due to lack of funding.

I don't typically do % estimates like you guys, but I read his book and some other material (for his side and against), and talked with him, and I believe (using philosophy) his ideas merit major research attention over their rivals.

You don't think that figuring out which ideas are "best available" is the hard part? Everyone and his dog claims his idea is the best.

well, using philosophy i did that hard part and figured out which ones are good.

I don't think that's true. Most people don't want to live for a long time as wrecks with Alzheimer's and pains in every joint, but invent a treatment that lets you stay at, say, the the 30-year-old level of health indefinitely and I bet few people will refuse (at least the non-religious ones).

oh they won't refuse that after it's cheaply available. they are confused and inconsistent.

Why is there a "should"?

b/c i didn't want the interpretation that it can be explained multiple ways. i'm advocating just the one option.

The twin studies are garbage, btw

All of them?

i have surveyed them and found them to all be garbage. i looked specifically at ones with some of the common, important conclusions, e.g. about heritability of autism, IQ, that kinda stuff. they have major methodological problems. but i imagine you could find some study involving twins, about something, which is ok.

if you believe you know a twin study that is not garbage, would you accept an explanation of why it's garbage as a demonstration of the power and importance of CR philosophy?