And placing some weight on the prediction that the curve will simply continue[1] seems like a useful heuristic / counterbalance (and has performed well).
“and has performed well” seems like a good crux to zoom in on; for which reference class of empirical trends is this true, and how true is it?
It’s hard to disagree with “place some weight”; imo it always makes sense to have some prior that past trends will continue. The question is how much weight to place on this heuristic vs. more gears-level reasoning.
For a random example, observers in 2009 might have mispredicted Spanish GDP over the next ten years if they placed a lot of weight on this prior.
“and has performed well” seems like a good crux to zoom in on; for which reference class of empirical trends is this true, and how true is it?
It’s hard to disagree with “place some weight”; imo it always makes sense to have some prior that past trends will continue. The question is how much weight to place on this heuristic vs. more gears-level reasoning.
For a random example, observers in 2009 might have mispredicted Spanish GDP over the next ten years if they placed a lot of weight on this prior.