Your primary argument takes me by surprise. The word “common” in that context doesn’t mean universal, and I think it’s fair to say that the inferring would start from the theorem itself, which includes the names. Anyhow—if at the end of the day Less Wrong votes that the theorem is refuted on this technicality, I will pay up.
Including the names is fine, but including any details about who those people are would be going beyond common knowledge, I think, even though common does not imply universal.
I’m also not sure it’s as much of a technicality as you think. Your claim isn’t “this is true about economics”, but “this is so obvious even a normal person could figure it out without any special knowledge”, and I think my argument shows that it’s not as obvious as you think.
Your primary argument takes me by surprise. The word “common” in that context doesn’t mean universal, and I think it’s fair to say that the inferring would start from the theorem itself, which includes the names. Anyhow—if at the end of the day Less Wrong votes that the theorem is refuted on this technicality, I will pay up.
Including the names is fine, but including any details about who those people are would be going beyond common knowledge, I think, even though common does not imply universal.
I’m also not sure it’s as much of a technicality as you think. Your claim isn’t “this is true about economics”, but “this is so obvious even a normal person could figure it out without any special knowledge”, and I think my argument shows that it’s not as obvious as you think.
It reminds me a bit of this XKCD