[roel_v]

AKA: "physicist frames discussion with economist in terms of things he is intimately familiar with but economist isn't, feels smug about his own perceived superiority". Probably a reflection on his frustration with feelings of being so much smarter than those 'economists' yet not being taken half as serious. The fact that he thought this was even worth spending 2-3 hours on writing up shows more about his lack of understanding of what economics is, than what he probably thinks is an "exposure" of the inadequacies of economics as a field.

(not an economist, but broad-minded enough to recognize someone who has spend so much time in his own field to be completely rigid-minded about it. An affliction rather common to CS types too, I'm sad to say, since as a software engineer in research I spend quite some time around those)

[kbenson]

It can certainly read like that, but there is a note before the exchange begins that explains his representation will be naturally biased, if by nothing else than by his remembering his argument better than the opposing argument. Additionally, he does concede some ground at the end.

That said, I'm not sure it's a real exchange. It feels somewhat manufactured to me. But that's somewhat irrelevant to the point, as long as the arguments each side presents are conceivable for their professions and the current prevailing beliefs within them (which I'm not qualified to judge).

In the end though, that's all irrelevant. The real question is whether you find the facts of the argument compelling and whether it changes your view on anything.