Second contribution to the ENE critique: Reply to Davidson, part 1

On 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.