Scott Alexander responds to Robin Hanson's reply on medical effectiveness, clarifying interpretations and reiterating arguments about the limitations of insurance experiments in evaluating medical care. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Robin Hanson's reply to his original post on medical effectiveness. Scott clarifies his interpretation of Hanson's views, discusses potential misunderstandings, and reiterates his arguments about the limitations of insurance experiments in evaluating medical effectiveness. He also addresses specific points Hanson made about cancer treatment, health insurance studies, and p-hacking in medical research. Scott concludes by restating his position that while some medicine is ineffective, it's crucial to distinguish between effective and ineffective treatments rather than dismissing medicine broadly. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his capitalism vs charity post, clarifying his argument and addressing various counterpoints and suggested capitalist charities. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his previous post about capitalism and charity. He clarifies that he's discussing a specific near-mode situation of how to best use a limited amount of money for improving human welfare, not running a 'Moral Worth Tournament' between capitalism and charity. He addresses arguments for investing in capitalism over charity, discussing issues like compounding returns, marginal utility, and the eventual need for consumption. Scott also explores specific capitalist charities suggested by commenters, including charter cities and microfinance, noting the lack of strong empirical evidence for many of these interventions. He concludes by stating what kind of evidence would change his mind on this topic. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander shares links to a debate between Gary Taubes and Stephan Guyenet about the health effects of sugar, praising the high-level discussion. Longer summary

This post discusses a debate about sugar's health effects, centered around Gary Taubes' work. Scott Alexander links to Stephan Guyenet's negative review of Taubes' book, then shares Taubes' counterargument. The debate involves multiple essays: Taubes' initial case against sugar on Cato Unbound, responses from Terence Kealy, Yoni Freedhoff, and Guyenet, and finally Taubes' rebuttal. Scott praises all participants for engaging in a high-level debate that has helped clarify his thinking on the topic. Shorter summary