Abstract
ABSTRACTOn first encounter, the ergodic/nonergodic (ENE) approach has apparent plausibility. Although concerned by some of its problems for many years, it was only after more concentrated reflection on both its parts and their combinations that I became aware of its manifold deficiencies, some of which I outlined in my previous critique (O’Donnell, 2014). In this paper, facilitated by Davidson’s (2015b) rejoinder, these criticisms are deepened, broadened, and strengthened. Because the debate deals with fundamental matters in several disciplines, a considerable amount of investigation, unpacking, and logical dissection is required to clarify the argumentation beneath the compressed and seemingly smooth surface of the ENE position. For this reason, my reply is divided into two parts. This contribution primarily examines the central role of framing in ENE arguments, and clarifies the various misunderstandings and misrepresentations to which it leads. The subsequent contribution provides more detailed discussion of mathematical, stochastic, and methodological issues.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
