> The Exile never tried to hide their ideological bent or claim any sort of objectivity. You can read their work, disagree with their point of view, but still respect the reporting.
Why should I respect reporting that doesn't claim any sort of objectivity? How can I trust reporting that doesn't even aspire to be objective?
> The purpose of starting the prize.
Can you be more specific?
> It is parasitic growth on the Nobel Prize reputation.
Can you explain why you think it is a "parasitic growth"?
> Economic Sciences. There are great economists, and great economic research (see the Akerlof and Romer paper I linked to above), and some even win the prize. But it is not a science.
What definition of "science" are you using? Is literature a science? Is peace a science?
What about anthropology? Geography? History? Linguistics? Political science? Psychology? Sociology?
Do you think computer science and electrical engineering are "questionable disciplines"? If not, what point did you intend to illustrate with them in your original comment?
Why should I respect reporting that doesn't claim any sort of objectivity? How can I trust reporting that doesn't even aspire to be objective?
> The purpose of starting the prize.
Can you be more specific?
> It is parasitic growth on the Nobel Prize reputation.
Can you explain why you think it is a "parasitic growth"?
> Economic Sciences. There are great economists, and great economic research (see the Akerlof and Romer paper I linked to above), and some even win the prize. But it is not a science.
What definition of "science" are you using? Is literature a science? Is peace a science?
What about anthropology? Geography? History? Linguistics? Political science? Psychology? Sociology?
Do you think computer science and electrical engineering are "questionable disciplines"? If not, what point did you intend to illustrate with them in your original comment?