Scott argues the real distinction in psychology isn't between subfields but between settled science (like dopamine, brain localization, heritability) and breaking-news research, defending psychology's solid core against critics who conflate bad recent studies with the entire field.

Scott Alexander analyzes EA's approach to criticism, arguing that specific, targeted critiques are more valuable than vague, paradigmatic ones for driving real change.

Scott Alexander examines various interpretations of rationality, concluding it might be best understood as 'the study of study' - a meta-level examination of truth-seeking methods.

Scott Alexander criticizes the misleading use of 'no evidence' in science communication and suggests more nuanced alternatives.

This review of Galen's 'On the Natural Faculties' challenges common misconceptions about the ancient physician, portraying him as more empirical and scientifically-minded than typically believed.

Scott Alexander argues that non-empirical reasoning, based on principles like simplicity and elegance, is a necessary and legitimate part of scientific practice, even for evaluating seemingly untestable theories.

Scott Alexander announces a contest for adversarial collaborations, offering prizes for teams who write balanced summaries on controversial topics they disagree about.

Scott Alexander argues that true logical debate, rarely attempted, could be more effective in changing minds than commonly believed, and is necessary for long-term progress in distinguishing truth from falsehood.

Scott Alexander argues that psychology is indeed in crisis, contrary to a New York Times article's claim, due to issues like publication bias and low replication rates.

Scott Alexander defends Less Wrong and Eliezer Yudkowsky against accusations of being anti-scientific, arguing that developing rational thinking skills beyond traditional scientific methods is valuable and necessary.

Scott Alexander proposes a utopian scientific system using prediction markets and impartial researchers to eliminate bias and efficiently resolve controversies.

The author humorously responds to a common argument against evidence-based medicine, suggesting a parachute experiment with a twist.

Scott Alexander examines the claim that '90% of medical research is false', arguing it's an exaggeration while acknowledging real issues in the field.

Scott explores whether philosophers genuinely seek answers or prefer endless debate, noting that while philosophy generates many solutions to problems, it lacks mechanisms like scientific experimentation to settle which solutions are correct.