Tackles an important question. In particular, it seems quite valuable to me that someone who tries to build a platform for intellectual progress attempts to build their own concrete models of the domain and try to test those against history
It also has a spirit of empiricism and figuring things out yourself, rather than assuming that you can’t learning anything from something that isn’t an academic paper
Those are positive attributes and contribute to good epistemic norms on the margin. Yet at the same time, a culture of unchecked amateur research could end up in bad states, and reviews seem like a useful mechanism to protect against that
This post:
Tackles an important question. In particular, it seems quite valuable to me that someone who tries to build a platform for intellectual progress attempts to build their own concrete models of the domain and try to test those against history
It also has a spirit of empiricism and figuring things out yourself, rather than assuming that you can’t learning anything from something that isn’t an academic paper
Those are positive attributes and contribute to good epistemic norms on the margin. Yet at the same time, a culture of unchecked amateur research could end up in bad states, and reviews seem like a useful mechanism to protect against that
This makes this suitable for a nomination.