That'd be nice if it was possible. However it runs into the standard social science problem -- you can't run experiments, so you have to rely on natural experiments. If the natural experiment doesn't exist, you don't have any data and you can't draw conclusions.
This is why research papers are not for the lay person, they are for the people who have the level of training to understand the nuances and make accommodations for it.
It’s a bit unfortunate that the democratization of knowledge, means that everyone is expected to read an NBER paper.
I think twice when I come across one, since it means a very large amount of time and calories are going to go into understanding it.
I think the point that the person you are responding to was trying to make is different - there is no way to actually test any of this, so it could just be all bullshit and no one could really tell.
To which my counterpoint was that it’s not fair to expect people without the training to look at it and realize it’s not bullshit, and to realize they tested and proved the point they made in the paper.
The conversation becomes something about what people can talk about, but not the math in the paper, or the supporting documentation or familiarity with the literature.
