[ghostly_s]

> Imagining a two-by-two matrix with the axes honest vs. dishonest and right vs. wrong, the scientific literature is splashed haphazardly across all four boxes.

Why should we give an extraordinarily claim like this any credence from the authors of a newly-minted substack who can't be assed to write more than a blurb on the topic, and whose listed credentials amount to a cagey statement that isn't even clear on whether they hold degrees?

[cwmoore]

How does your appeal to authority impact their claim?

[cauch]

That's not a "appeal to authority", just that reliable conclusions require people who have dedicated enough thoughts on the subject to avoid basic mistakes.

You have exactly the same thing in software development: a closed source software released by an unknown small team that makes surprising claims and that show clues that the authors don't really understand what they are doing is also not trusted.

[cwmoore]

I’m not sure where to fit in the article’s referenced “Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics”

It seems to be a statement making a statement. The rubric is not scientific, but persuasive. I think you are approaching the topic in a particularly narrow context.