“I Have a Story to Tell That Is Similar in Important Ways to the Story You Tell in the Article Titled ‘When the Scientific Consensus Is Corrected by a Skeptic.’ Your Story Showed How Hard It Can Be to Correct a Claim That Has Been Shown to Be ‘Science’ in the Eyes of a Majority. The Reality, of Course, Is That True Science Is Always Open to Corrections to Old Ways of Thinking.”

Set forth below is the text of an e-mail that I sent on November 17, 2018, to the editors at CommentaryMagazine.com after reading an article there titled When the Scientific Consensus Is Corrected By a Skeptic:

Commentary Editors:

My name is Rob Bennett. I have a story to tell that is similar in important ways to the story you tell in the article titled “When the Scientific Consensus Is Corrected by a Skeptic.” Your story showed how hard it can be to correct a claim that has been shown to be “science” in the eyes of a majority. The reality, of course, is that true science is always open to corrections to old ways of thinking.

I have written an article titled “Buy-and-Hold Is Dangerous” that details how discussion of the many far-reaching implications of Robert Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research has been suppressed by advocates (both professionals and ordinary people) of the Buy-and-Hold investment strategy. I make the case for why this should be a high-priority public policy concern.

The article as written is probably far too long for publication in your magazine. However, I am reluctant to send you only a portion of the article as it has been my experience that people have a hard time understanding this issue (although the ideas themselves are simple enough) and I tried to address that problem by making the case complete in the article as written. My aim is to get the word out. I would of course be happy to write a shorter article if I was able to get you interested in the story by sending along my full treatment of it.

The article is attached. I wish you the best of luck in all your endeavors.

Rob