My reply:
Even a blind squirrel gets an acorn every now and then. Claiming that if the conclusion is true then the premise must also be true is a known fallacy. You need to show the existence of objective criteria that form the basis of Nobel awards to refute.
**** Now if that isn't raising the bar so high that no definition of objectivity can be proffered, I don't know what is.
While it's not hard to agree the Nobel econ. prize is more about "serving" various interests, the earlier claims, especially with regards to Eric Kandel's work, make little sense; especially if you took the time to actually look at his work [for a quick look try "Principles of Neural Science, the leading neuroscience text for medical students].
>>To be sure, this problem is not limited to the Nobel prize in economics,
but to Nobel prize in general. Since it is impossible to objectively
determine what constitutes the greatest contribution to science in general,
let alone such a contribution during the past year, such annual events are
but beauty contests, or rather rituals bestowing seals of political
correctness.
The Nobel prize money would be better spent on genuine advancement of knowledge, say, funding statistical reporting in developing countries.
**** What's politically correct about what Einstein or Kandel have accomplished in their respective fields, that disqualifies what they've done as a "genuine advancement of knowledge"? Better, what are the objective criteria that disqualifies their work?
Ian