I agree that Wikipedia wasn't the best source to go for criticism: Wikipedia is very sympathetic to the claims like in the book, so the criticism section is very weak sauce.
It is indeed noble that the authors responded to the criticism, but unlike what Wikipedia seems to imply, they didn't manage to rescue their argument.
It is indeed noble that the authors responded to the criticism, but unlike what Wikipedia seems to imply, they didn't manage to rescue their argument.
See https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/03/th... from another comment.