[stevenAthompson]

I'm not sure it qualifies as argumentum ab auctoritate to say that a group comprised of Nobel prize winner's and renowned statistics experts are far more likely to be right about statistics than a solitary compsci professor.

Even if it does qualify, It's widely accepted that argument from authority is perfectly valid and often necessary when performing inductive reasoning.

I might even say that if you are not expert enough to judge the matter yourself (or willing to expend enough effort) it should be your default presumption that the more qualified speakers are correct, even if you have legitimate questions about their potential motivations.

[pocketsand]

My issue here is that Imbens and Gelman are respected because they are good statisticians but also clear thinkers who have proved themselves dedicated to doing good, careful work. If you have major issues with work their name is on, I would think their reputation would at least lead reasonable people to contact them first before writing something which leads to hurt feelings and numerous comments and corrections and more posts on each end.

This whole affair is a case in point. Several authors ended up responding with very reasonable responses, which the author then acknowledged. Then he writes another post, which is more measured and insightful.

The original post would have in fact been a far better one if the author had first sought those responses and just addressed them all together at once. His points about metascience would not then be dragged down by back and forth in the comments that clearly got personal.