You also might want to sum it up in the same way Paul Romer sums it up in the title of his third post, "Stigler Conviction vs. Feynman Integrity", or as he puts

You also might want to sum it up in the same way Paul Romer sums it up in the title of his third post, "Stigler Conviction vs. Feynman Integrity", or as he puts it in his first post: "This evidence strengthens my belief that the fundamental divide here is between the norms of political discourse and the norms of scientific discourse. Lawyers and politicians both engage in a version of the adversarial method" In law there is a case to be made for the adversarial method (Though the disparities in what each side can afford in legal counsel undermine it almost entirely), but I question whether it is good for politics. We are so polarized and reflexive in all debates. Libertarians refuse to concede any flaws in their model of how things work, and the same is true for those who want the government and laws to take over. The question is, has social progress mostly come about through political war, where each side employs any means necessary to win, including dishonest ones, or through honest discourse, where we arrive at truth not through attrition but through reason? I want it to be the latter but most of the world acts like it's the former. And quite often the appalling injustices and suffering that continue in the world cause me wonder whether I should give up idealism and grab a musket.