I think the Garbage Theory is fundamentally flawed. Since "credible inference" is subsumed by "structural economics", garbage generation is a logical impossibility. This is expressed clearly in ucla.in/2mhxKdO, Section on "Experimentalists". Quoting:
Quoting: "to the extent that the “experimental” approach is valid, it is a routine exercise in structural economics. However, the philosophical basis of the “experimentalist” approach, as it is currently marketed, is both flawed and error prone." (The Refs are illuminating)
Thus, Good news to all sailors and passenger on this unassailable ship: "The garbage attack is over." Moreover, the more you hear about things "you dont even know" (eg. "what data you need") the closer we get to an automated-Angrist, because, if this is what we need to know,
we are already there. See ucla.in/2Jc1kdD on how smart structural economists can select data sources for identification. What else do they ("credibility" claimants) think "you don't even know"? The more the better. #Bookofwhy