Even flawed scientistic rigor in policy analysis is preferable to none, since its absence would open the field to irresponsible, ideological policy advice.

Added to korrents 2 Sept 2026 · How quotes work · Something wrong? Tell us

Where this collides

• In tension with

  Trust in institutions has fallen because the institutions have been repeatedly and spectacularly wrong.

  Cowen argues that even flawed scientistic rigour in policy analysis beats none, because its absence hands the field to ideological advice. Cochrane says institutions have been so repeatedly and spectacularly wrong that losing trust in them is the reasonable response. One is defending the practice against its failures; the other is counting the failures.

Shared subject first, then similar wording. They may agree or disagree.

• There is no correct heuristic for science, so what you need is many independent research programmes each running its own bias. GSGrant Sanderson30 Jun 2026
• Objectivism's fundamental flaw is that it is justified by a fictional world rather than the real one, which makes it useless for understanding where we actually live. JBJennifer Burns19 Jan 2025
• Arguing that nobody should have powerful AI is a respectable position; arguing that only trusted authorities should have it is not. GHGeorge Hotz29 Jun 2023
• "There is no empirical evidence against my position" is not an argument for it. DLDan Luu7 Nov 2014
• The stock of useful scientific knowledge is bounded rather than endless. JRJosé Luis Ricón20 Jun 2020

On the map

Open the map on its own page