I've been trained in interdisciplinary research. As part of the training, common issues in problem research fields were covered. The economists here are behavi

I've been trained in interdisciplinary research. As part of the training, common issues in problem research fields were covered. The economists here are behaving actually how researchers from problem search fields typically behave. One typically problem behaviour is argument by example, two different research groups have their own theory and then they use research papers and more recently social media to send each other ridicious examples of where their theory works and the other research group's does not. An example of argument by example is: "Would a person ever prefer a process [A] that, after three rounds, diminishes wealth from US$10,000 to 0.5 cents over one [B] that yields a 99.9% chance of US$10,000,000 and otherwise US$0? Ergodic theory predicts [A] [... but] [v]irtually everyone will prefer B" from the rebuttal paper. Along with all the other ones in the rebuttal paper. That's a telltale sign of poor quality researchers. They didn't even bother spend any time to work out what Ole Peters was even saying and since they didn't know what Ole Peters was saying, they failed to refute it. Good researchers, who's opinions are worth listening to, don't behave in that manner.