But I am calling the arguments that they use in the article ridiculous, and in particular the parts that I've quoted in my post above.
Even if you put all methodological issues (and citations from Richard Feynman) aside or even whether corporate taxes work or not, lots of social science findings would seem dubious simply because they deal with human behavior, which is something which is almost impossible to not have an opinion on, specially because it attempts to describe our own behavior.
The problem is that, if I were to understand reality through my own behavior, it would be through an unwarranted generalization of my own conditions to the population as a whole. It's like that joke of "why don't they just buy themselves some money?".
That's one of the issues, at least.
If you're going to ban me, just ban me.
You've been downvoting all my comments for months now. Would you please stop doing that? Abusive downvotes are dropped by the software, but they still add noise to the data.
Edit: Ok, since you've responded by doing even more of it, I'm going to take this as a signal that you're not using HN in good faith and ban your account. If you don't want it to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected].
Here's what I honestly don't understand about HN:
Climate change has near unanimous support from climatologists. Most (rightly, imho) point that as a reason why it should be accepted by the general public. And those doubting the experts are considered ridiculous.
Here, however, we have an issue to drop corporate taxes which has near unanimous support from economists (across the political spectrum). Yet we call the experts ridiculous.
Why the flip? Why should the general public accept the expert advice in one field, but then turn around & call it ridiculous in another?