.I just think it's bad epistemic hygiene to judge models by the apparent usefulness of the techniques which they suggest
I disagree. I think that judging models by the success of their forecasts in empirical reality is precisely how they should be evaluated.
Why? Doesn't that mean you'll end up accepting all manner of placebo and frequently misunderstand the reason that something works?
forecasts
You're mis-paraphrasing "forecasts", where I just said "techniques" in general. I think the distinction between pre and post hoc is important here.
If they are actually forecasts (as in, the prediction was made after making the model) then it does lend some credence...but if the model was made post-hoc of seeing certain techniques work and observing certain trends, as is the case with most of what we are talking about, it's another matter entirely.
This is an experiment to use polls to tap into the crowd knowledge probably present on LW.
This is your chance to ask your multiple choice question you always wanted to throw in. Get qualified numeric feedback to your comments. Post fun polls.
There are some rules:
If you don't know how to make a poll in a comment look at the Poll Markup Help.
This being an experiment I do not announce it to be regular. If it is successful I may. Or you may. In that case I recommend the following to make this potentially more usable:
EDIT: Added recommendations from KnaveOfAllTrades.