Ian Hurst wrote:
...Both of these I'd happily disregard (even if it goes against my own or accepted theory) if there's a consistent body of work which shows, in an applied setting, something that consistently works, even if it's theoretically "dumb".
I would agree with your underlying position, however I would probably word this differently. Such that: If I saw something that worked consistently in an applied setting but that contradicted a particular theory or group of theories, and/or was pressed theoretically into be noted as "inferior," I would not so much be looking at a need to adopt a "dumb move." Rather, I would be looking at a need to refine my theories - make them more sophisticated so that they could not only account for the particular move (i.e. providing the whys and hows underlying its effectiveness) in question but also lead to other moves of a similar nature that were at first hidden from (theoretical) sight.
p.s. Great summary post Larry - you are right on target with what I am trying to say.