Scott clarifies his stance on conspiracy theories and expert trust, advocating for a nuanced approach that acknowledges both the value of expert opinion and the potential for misrepresentation. Longer summary

Scott revisits his previous post on fideism, addressing criticism and clarifying his stance on conspiracy theories and trusting experts. He presents three perspectives on conspiracy theories: Idiocy, Intellect, and Infohazard, and argues for a nuanced approach. Scott emphasizes that conspiracy theories can be convincing even to smart people, and that completely avoiding discussion of them is not always effective. He stresses the importance of trusting experts while also being aware of potential biases and misrepresentations. The post concludes with detailed advice on how to approach conspiracy theories and maintain a balanced perspective. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends his thorough analysis of ivermectin studies, arguing that dismissing controversial topics without addressing evidence can inadvertently promote conspiracy theories. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to criticism from Chris Kavanagh about his lengthy analysis of ivermectin studies. He argues that dismissing controversial topics without addressing evidence can push people toward conspiracy theories. Scott shares his personal experience with Atlantis conspiracy theories as a teenager, emphasizing the importance of providing rational explanations rather than mockery. He critiques Kavanagh's apparent stance against examining evidence, likening it to religious fideism. Scott defends the value of practicing critical thinking and evidence evaluation, even on settled issues, to build skills for harder cases. He argues that conspiracy theorists use similar reasoning processes to everyone else, just with more biases, and that understanding these processes is crucial for effective communication and prevention of misinformation. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to critiques of his 2021 ivermectin analysis, acknowledging some errors but maintaining his conclusion that ivermectin likely doesn't work for COVID-19. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Alexandros Marinos' critique of his 2021 post on ivermectin studies, addressing points about individual studies, meta-analysis methods, publication bias, and new evidence since 2021. He acknowledges some mistakes in his original analysis but maintains his overall conclusion that ivermectin is likely ineffective for COVID-19. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the concept of 'Pascalian Medicine', weighing the pros and cons of taking multiple unproven but potentially beneficial treatments. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'Pascalian Medicine', where one takes multiple unproven but safe treatments based on a small chance they might work. He discusses this in the context of COVID-19 treatments like Vitamin D and ivermectin, and extends it to other conditions. The post examines arguments for and against this approach, including safety concerns, societal impacts, and the risk of being exploited by bad actors. Scott concludes that while this strategy might work for individuals, it's problematic on a societal level, and reconciling inside and outside views on the probability of treatments working remains challenging. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques the FDA's slow approval process for Paxlovid, a promising COVID-19 treatment, despite its proven effectiveness. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the FDA's delay in approving Paxlovid, a highly effective COVID-19 treatment. He criticizes the FDA for taking an estimated six weeks to approve the drug despite stopping trials early due to its effectiveness. The post explores the inconsistency in the FDA's approach, questions potential reasons for the delay, and emphasizes the urgency of approval given the ongoing COVID-19 deaths. Scott also addresses potential criticisms by comparing the situation to ivermectin and acknowledging the risk of unforeseen issues with Paxlovid. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his ivermectin article, discussing criticisms, the worms hypothesis, vaccine skepticism, and journalism quality. Longer summary

This post highlights comments on Scott Alexander's previous article about ivermectin as a potential COVID-19 treatment. Scott responds to criticisms from ivmmeta.com, discusses the worms hypothesis with various commenters, addresses concerns about the TOGETHER trial, and shares perspectives on vaccine skepticism and journalism quality. He also reflects on his own writing process compared to traditional journalism. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes ivermectin studies for COVID-19, finding most positive results likely due to methodological flaws, fraud, or confounding by parasitic infections. Longer summary

Scott Alexander provides an in-depth analysis of ivermectin studies for COVID-19 treatment, examining methodological issues, potential fraud, and confounding factors. He concludes that ivermectin likely doesn't significantly reduce COVID mortality except potentially in areas with high parasitic worm infections. The post explores broader issues around scientific credibility, fraud detection, and public trust in science. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes the evolving narrative around a news story about ivermectin overdoses in Oklahoma hospitals, illustrating how cognitive biases and media dynamics can distort information. Longer summary

Scott Alexander examines a news story about ivermectin overdoses overwhelming Oklahoma hospitals, showing how it evolved from a local news report to international coverage, and was then seemingly debunked. He uses this as a case study in cognitive biases, media narratives, and the difficulty of determining truth in polarized situations. The post is structured in three parts, each revealing a new layer of complexity and uncertainty in the story. Scott emphasizes the importance of skepticism and checking sources, even (or especially) when a story confirms one's existing beliefs. Shorter summary