It's an artifact of history, when 200 years ago it may have taken weeks for states to count votes, certify and send representatives with the results, assuming they made it to the capital and didn't die during travel when their horse fell into a river or something...
Plus, once confirmed (on the 6th), it does take some time to change cabinets etc.
Sure, but there's a difference between coming with riot gear and attacking protestors, and posting 10 cops to guard all of congress and then have them walk away when protestors show up leaving the doors wide open.
They could have easily guarded the building itself. Close the doors and post 30 guards at each entrance?
I think this is the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument. A valid argument means the conclusion follows from the premise, kinda like the quoted argument in the article which seems to be valid.
A sound argument is one whose premises are also true. This is where the quoted argument in the article fails. The premises either are false or don't apply to all startups. This is basically what the author means by a argument that is missing premises. It's not really that a premise is missing, but that without additional into it may seem like the argument is sound,but with additional into you realize it is not sound and therefore leads to a different conclusion instead.
Isn't it expected that as scientists understand their field in greater depth, they make less mistakes and their papers would be closer to the truth and be rejected less?
It's not like many of these fields are just starting up.
This year I've read a lot of epidemiology papers, and sometimes their peer reviews. There's something deeply wrong with peer reviewers in this field because they often write long, detailed reviews that completely ignore glaring problems in the papers, problems that jump out to 'lay' readers on the first glance through. My guess is that there are very complicated sets of unwritten rules about the sorts of problems that are and are not legitimate to criticise in peer reviews, and problems that are a little bit too fundamental, of the form "this entire paper should be rejected out of hand", don't get given when a paper has 25 authors at prestigious universities, even if the methodology or conclusions are absurd.
Ok, but I think your examples are specific to the social sciences where the method used is not sufficiently close to the scientific method to be reliable enough. Hence you're likely to see systemic biases in junior and senior authors alike as the field may not converge to "truth".
But in fields that the method is closer to science (e.g. physics, chemistry, neuroscience), I would expect that the overall field is converging to the truth and that senior authors will therefore be more tuned in to the best estimate of truth or how to get to it than junior authors.
Yeah, but do you have a formal list of academic fields labeled as scientific by media/government but which are not actually scientific? The term "social science" doesn't cover it, as epidemiology is proving. Not many would call it a social science but the problems there are identical or frankly even worse. And what of climatology, another field where people construct complex models on relatively small datasets and can't do even small scale experiments? Is that also a social science? Clearly not.
Even in microbiology there are a huge number of papers that don't replicate.
To me it looks like the problems are general. They aren't restricted to a small set of social sciences.
You seem to be conflating the problem of weak or no pear review (i.e. the reason why paper-mill publications are shitty), with the problem of judging a paper by the author's name and not purely by its content (i.e. what the OP proposed).
If we value interpretability for the particular model, e.g. as in the loan example or where by law you have to make sure race was not a consideration, I'd say yes. In places where interpretability has no additional value, than of course no.
But it of course depends on the exact value trade-off, which any model designer already has to consider.
As the saying goes "America designs for lowest cost, Germans design for high performance and Japanese design for high reliability and ease of maintenance".
I heard this in the context of someone marveling at the layout in an engine bay of a 80s Toyota, but it also applies to a friend's brother who restores boomboxes. This gentleman was describing how a single motor turned a bunch of different things, depending on which switch was pressed, and how elegant and simple the design was.
Post 2007, Hyundais have been excellent (and very much underrated). They brought in European designers so the aesthetic is much improved (though I don't care for their 2016-2020 grille shapes).
They've always struggled with resale value due to early reputational issues, but I'd say the build quality is now very close to the top 3 Japanese manufacturers. The 10-year powertrain warranty was a low-cost move to regain the market's trust -- I doubt very many people cash-in on it (the engineering is excellent nowadays)
When I was looking at cars some time ago, an accessories fully-loaded Hyundai was about the same price as a bare-bones Honda or Toyota. The discount rate may have leveled off these days.
They are a general nightmare to own after the first year or so. They encounter hardware issues way more frequently compared to Japanese cars. For a typical Japanese car like Honda / Toyota / Mazda, you typically don't need to do anything other than regular maintenance (oil changes, tire rotations, break and tire replacements) for the first 5–6 years or 60000 miles. These are simple enough to be done very easily at any regular mechanic. Many Japanese cars run 100K+ miles without encountering any issue.
BMWs, otoh, you would be lucky if you went a few years without encountering any mechanical issue. And when you do, you are more likely to have to take it to their dealership, and my friends' experience of visiting those hasn't been great either.
My BMW had the following failures within a short time-frame. The dashboard was "lit up like a Christmas tree". (Does not including normal wear items like brakes, battery, filters)
Mechanical failures - Water pump, air condition compressor, loose seat bushings
Sensor failures (Possibly all from the same sensor supplier) - fuel level sensor (!), all oxygen sensors ($$$), passenger seat airbag sensor (!), air mass-flow sensor, engine air intake sensor, rear ABS brake sensors, coolant temperature sensor, cam position sensor
These are known problems and fixes documented on car forums, thus home garage repair was possible for everything except the AC. The price of parts and sensors is high (compared to Honda).
Search for "dishwasher magnet", which is made exactly for this.