In this case, the prize can even be given to an economist who inspired a policy that led to the worse budgetary crisis in decades (or ever?), if that economist is respected by a sufficiently large fraction of the field. It says as much about the field than about the person.
3/3

In a polarized field like economics, you can then have economists with entirely opposite views, say Aghion and Stiglitz, honored by the prize. Contradictory views cannot be all correct.
2/3

Paul is impressive. These are tough subjects and every time he can lead an hour of conversation with insightful questions.

That's a pretty a bad argument. Introducing an (alleged) solution to a problem shouldn't create a whole set of new problems, especially worse ones.

The idea of science as mainly hypothesis testing is an old philosophical conception that has been thoroughly debunked by at least 80 years of philosophy of science.

OMG no. Not all scientific research takes the form of testing a hypothesis. That would be a terrible move.

Certainly is if everyone endorses it without question.

And that's good?

I think the issue that many people see here is that it is also an official endorsement. It tells journalists that it's ok to use an LLM to assess whether a paper is correct. It encourages editors to screen submissions with it.

On this subject, Blumberg's "Basic instinct" is amazing: www.amazon.fr/Basic-Instin...

L'ERC est très hypocrite sur ce point: "significant publications in major international peer-reviewed multidisciplinary scientific journals". Le facteur d'impact c'est mal, par contre il faut quand même publier dans Nature pour être "excellent".

A general biological phenomenon, like Aplysia for learning.

Ok you lost me now. I have no idea what you are talking about!

It's getting very confusing. What do you actually want to do?

You want to automate the enforcement of "rules of good science" and gave p<.05 as an example. Did I misunderstand?

Why would you take a bad rule as an example of what you want to do?