Doesn't that mean you'll end up accepting all manner of placebo and frequently misunderstand the reason that something works?
The fact that I want to judge models by their effectiveness in the real world does not imply that I have to be stupid about it.
If they are actually forecasts
The Red models make forecasts: they tell you what to do and what results to expect, all in the future.
but if the model was made post-hoc of seeing certain techniques work and observing certain trends
That's usually called historical data on which the model is based (or fitted) :-)
But is it your contention that Red techniques (regardless of whether the underlying Red models are correct or not) actually work? You seem to have been saying that they don't.
We all try to be stupid about it, but all sorts of biases will begin coming into play with nebulous criteria like that.
A model based on historical data becomes more trustworthy once it makes a prediction in a novel scenario. If the Phlogiston model tells you to predict that fire goes out when airflow is restricted, it doesn't increase the model's impressiveness because Becher knew that fact before he made the model.
You seem to have been saying that they don't
Yes, I was sort of saying that earlier when I was talking about generalities. But I am also in ...
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.