> Edit: looks like it’s not just me: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.03275.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.03275.pdf Well, a lone author publishing a 4 page essay on

> Edit: looks like it’s not just me: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.03275.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.03275.pdf Well, a lone author publishing a 4 page essay on arXiv isn't particularly compelling to say the least. I could take two hours of my afternoon and write “«‘Ergodicity Economics’ is Pseudoscience» is Pseudoscience” and publish it there. In fact, the author of the said PDF[1] explicitly write down that he doesn't really attempted to understand the point of the guy he's criticizing: From the second paragraph: > it is not easy to define what EE is because I am not an expert on this field > It is not clear what kind of economic questions the author is trying to address > I interpret that EE prescribes Dude this isn't how science works, you don't just publish papers to shit on someone else's research without even having attempted to understand what it is about. WTF Edit: oh I was missing that little gem: “Until EE provides testable implications, we should stay away from it as pseudoscience.” Coming from an economist, this is peek irony (or peek hypocrisy, you decide) [1]: https://xkcd.com/2304/ https://xkcd.com/2304/