[florencebuzz]

Wild false equivalency.

Markets don’t react to mere knowledge of them, like in your magical thought experiment.

Markets react to actions determined not by the knowledge itself but by discrete reactions to the knowledge called thoughts.

If economists hadn’t given up on knowledge oh about a century ago or so, we might not be so addicted to this pattern of spiraling anti-intellect.

[bscphil]

> Wild false equivalency.

My comparison is intentionally exaggerated. The post claims that it doesn't matter what reason the doctor has for telling you a lie, that it's just obviously wrong. I think this is ludicrous. If it's sometimes permissible for a doctor to lie, then it might also be permissible for an economist to lie.

I don't really follow the rest of what you're claiming, perhaps because you're responding to some point that I haven't made. In particular you seem to have a bone to pick with economists, and this is very vague:

> Markets react to actions determined not by the knowledge itself but by discrete reactions to the knowledge called thoughts.

[zests]

That still seems like a wild literal over-interpretation. If we think like a physicist we can say that prosocial lying is wrong yet still understand that the mathematician will consider it okay in the limit case.

[skrebbel]

> If economists hadn’t given up on knowledge oh about a century ago or so,

You're writing this as if everybody knows what you're referring to, but I really don't. What are you referring to? What does it mean for someone to "give up on knowledge"?