Scott Alexander examines his evolving view on scientific consensus, realizing it's more reliable and self-correcting than he previously thought. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on his changing perspective towards scientific consensus, sharing personal experiences where he initially believed he was defying consensus but later discovered that the scientific community was often ahead of or aligned with his views. He discusses examples from various fields including the replication crisis, nutrition science, social justice issues, and AI risk. Alexander concludes that scientific consensus, while not perfect, is remarkably effective and trustworthy, often self-correcting within a decade of new evidence emerging. Shorter summary

Scott shares and comments on various links covering topics like startups, science, academia, social issues and charitable giving, with a focus on rationalist and effective altruist causes. Longer summary

This is a links post collecting various interesting articles and news from around the internet. Topics include a startup betting on marriage success, privacy/encryption history, climate change policy, scientific studies on aging and obesity, academic criticism, college renaming controversies, drug use surveys, and charitable giving. The post has Scott's typical style of briefly summarizing each link while adding his own commentary and connections between topics. The post ends with several charitable giving opportunities related to rationalist and effective altruist organizations. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'Eulering' and strategies for dealing with complex mathematical arguments in non-mathematical debates. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of 'Eulering,' where complex mathematical arguments are used to refute non-mathematical ideas, potentially leaving those less mathematically inclined unable to respond effectively. He uses the apocryphal story of Diderot and Euler to illustrate this concept. Scott explores the dilemma of whether to dismiss such arguments as sophistry or to accept them at face value, highlighting the trade-off between avoiding mathematical intimidation and maintaining intellectual rigor. He discusses his personal experiences with mathematical arguments in various fields, particularly focusing on statistics in scientific research. Scott proposes a strategy of 'routing around' complex mathematical objections by focusing on the underlying non-mathematical claims and evidence. Shorter summary