[gliboc]

The original proposal, which is not by Caplan, tries to optimize time spent reading, which is crucial as a researcher.

> And why would anyone need criteria for that? What kind of person would need to justify to themselves or others that they prefer to study topology instead of, say, financial mathematics?

We need criteria to assess the value to papers, because generally the whole assumed point of writing a paper is to add value.

> Caplan apparently needs some criterion to be able to be dismissive about someone else's work or discipline rather than pursuing his own scientific goals and interests. Yes, I find that kind of anti-intellectual, or at least small-minded.

Ad hominem much. Also, Caplan doesn't say that, and you are talking about the original proposal. You don't seem to have read the article further than the title and the premise, though interestingly you seem able to judge the author itself and convict him with bad thinking. This very much contradicts your own previous piece of advice

> 1. Never dismiss a book or paper quickly because you believe you've found a mistake. Read them until the end and take the authors seriously!

which, to me, seem rather like virtue signaling than a real advice; all the more when you don't apply it thoroughly in reality.

[jonathanstrange]

Look, I've never claimed I've read anything, that was your invention, and I've also said that you should use your bullshit detector and wise men choose their literature carefully.

I simply objected to the idea on the linked web page that you can ask someone to give you the two best articles in a field, then assess these, and use your resulting opinion to somehow evaluate the whole field as an outsider.

That idea is silly and small-minded. If that feels like an ad hominem attack to you, so be it.