Scott Alexander responds to comments on his post about criticism of EA, addressing various points about scientific paradigms, types of criticism, and the ethics of evangelism. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his previous post about criticism of EA. He addresses various points raised by commenters, including discussions about the nature of paradigm shifts in science, the value of specific vs. general criticism, and the ethics of evangelism. Scott clarifies that he wasn't arguing EA only wants non-threatening criticism, but rather that some organizations genuinely want to improve. He also reflects on the challenges of distinguishing between expressing opinions and evangelizing, especially for philosophies that make unusual moral demands. Shorter summary

Scott proposes a 'low-hanging fruit' model to explain trends in scientific discovery, using a foraging analogy to illustrate why early scientists make more discoveries and at a younger age. Longer summary

Scott Alexander proposes a model to explain several trends in scientific discovery over time, using an analogy of foragers in a camp. The model suggests that early scientists make more discoveries than later ones, amateurs are more likely to contribute early on, and the age of discovery increases over time. These trends are less pronounced for brilliant scientists and don't apply to new fields. The model provides a mechanical explanation for trends often attributed to political factors, though Scott estimates it accounts for about 75% of the effect. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues against Erik Hoel's claim that the decline of 'aristocratic tutoring' explains the perceived lack of modern geniuses, offering alternative explanations and counterexamples. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques Erik Hoel's essay on the decline of geniuses, which attributes this decline to the loss of 'aristocratic tutoring'. Scott argues that this explanation is insufficient, providing counterexamples of historical geniuses who weren't aristocratically tutored. He also points out that fields like music, where such tutoring is still common, still experience a perceived decline in genius. Scott proposes alternative explanations for the apparent lack of modern geniuses, including the increasing difficulty of finding new ideas, the distribution of progress across more researchers, and changing social norms around celebrating individual brilliance. He suggests that newer, smaller fields like AI and AI alignment still produce recognizable geniuses, supporting his view that the apparent decline is more about the maturity and size of fields than about educational methods. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues for valuing thinkers who produce original ideas, even if they're often wrong, criticizing the tendency to dismiss intellectuals for their mistakes. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the value of thinkers who generate original ideas, even if they also produce many incorrect ones. He uses the metaphor of a 'black box' that generates hypotheses, arguing that even with a low success rate, such a device would be incredibly valuable. He then applies this concept to real-world geniuses like Newton and Einstein, who despite some questionable ideas, produced groundbreaking work. Scott argues for 'positive selection' in intellectual pursuits, where a single good idea should outweigh multiple bad ones. He criticizes the tendency to dismiss thinkers entirely for having some wrong ideas, which he terms 'intellectual outrage culture'. The post concludes by emphasizing that even deeply flawed thinkers can provide valuable insights. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander presents highlights from reader comments on his review of Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', offering various perspectives and clarifications on Kuhn's ideas about scientific progress. Longer summary

This post highlights comments on Scott Alexander's review of Thomas Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'. The comments provide additional context, clarifications, and perspectives on Kuhn's work. They discuss topics such as the nature of paradigm shifts, the relationship between different scientific theories, Kuhn's metaphysics, and the implications of his ideas for the philosophy of science. The post also includes an analogy comparing scientific progress to building skyscrapers, and touches on the debate between Kuhn and Popper's views on falsification in science. Shorter summary

Scott reviews Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions', finding its thesis on paradigm shifts in science intriguing but frustratingly vague, especially beyond physics. Longer summary

Scott reviews Thomas Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', which argues that science progresses through paradigm shifts rather than simple accumulation of facts. Kuhn posits that scientific paradigms are comprehensive worldviews that guide research and interpretation of data. When anomalies accumulate, a new paradigm may emerge to replace the old one. Scott finds Kuhn's thesis intriguing but frustratingly vague in parts, especially in applying it beyond physics. He draws connections between Kuhn's ideas and predictive coding in neuroscience, suggesting both describe how pre-existing mental structures shape perception and understanding. Overall, Scott sees value in Kuhn's perspective but wishes for more clarity and examples from other scientific fields. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes a paper suggesting scientific progress is slowing relative to researcher numbers, arguing this trend is expected and possibly beneficial. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a paper by Bloom, Jones, Reenen & Webb (2018) that suggests scientific progress is slowing down relative to the number of researchers. The paper shows that while progress in various fields (e.g., transistor density, crop yields) remains constant, the number of researchers has increased exponentially. Scott argues that this constant progress despite exponential increase in inputs should be our null hypothesis, as expecting proportional increases would lead to unrealistic outcomes. He suggests that the 'low-hanging fruit' explanation is most plausible, where early discoveries were easier to make. Scott also warns against trying to 'fix' this trend, as it could lead to dangerous consequences if scientific progress accelerated too quickly. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines a paper suggesting scientific progress is slowing relative to researcher numbers, arguing this trend is expected and potentially beneficial. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a paper by Bloom, Jones, Reenen & Webb (2018) that suggests scientific progress is slowing down relative to the number of researchers. The paper shows that while progress in various fields (like transistor density, crop yields, and economic productivity) has remained constant or grown linearly, the number of researchers has increased exponentially. Scott argues that this constant progress despite exponential input growth should be our null hypothesis, as the alternative would lead to unrealistic scenarios like immortality or 50% annual GDP growth. He suggests that the 'low-hanging fruit' explanation is most plausible, where easier discoveries are made first, making further progress increasingly difficult. Scott also cautions against trying to 'fix' this trend, noting potential dangers of accelerated scientific progress. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander uses the evolution of genetic science as a metaphor to explore how other fields might benefit from recognizing the polycausal nature of complex phenomena. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the evolution of genetic science, from the search for single genes responsible for complex traits to the current understanding that almost all genes contribute to these traits. He uses this as a metaphor for other sciences, particularly psychiatry, suggesting that many fields may be more polycausal than initially thought. The post explores the implications of this shift, including skepticism about personalized medicine and the potential need for new approaches to scientific research that can handle massive numbers of interacting causes. Scott concludes by imagining a hypothetical alien society where science is centered around polycausal scores, presenting this as a thought experiment for what science could aspire to be. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes a Boston Review article on futurism for focusing on identity politics rather than substantive future predictions, arguing this approach trivializes important technological and societal developments. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques an article from Boston Review about futurism, highlighting five main issues. He argues that the article fails to make real arguments about the future, misunderstands the concept of Singularity, wrongly associates certain technologies with privilege, falsely portrays conflict between different futurist groups, and grossly underestimates the impact of potential future changes. Scott contrasts this with his view of futurism as a serious endeavor to improve the human condition and prepare for potentially massive changes. He expresses frustration that much current discourse about the future focuses on identity politics rather than substantive issues, drawing a parallel with an 18th-century futurist novel that was more concerned with religious prejudice than imagining actual changes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the similarities between Predictive Processing and Perceptual Control Theory, arguing that PCT anticipates many aspects of PP and deserves recognition for its insights. Longer summary

Scott Alexander draws parallels between Predictive Processing (PP) and Perceptual Control Theory (PCT), suggesting that PCT anticipates many aspects of PP. He argues that both theories share the concept of cognitive 'layers' acting at various levels, with upper layers influencing lower layers to produce desired stimuli. Scott notes that PP offers a more refined explanation for higher-level cognitive processes compared to PCT's sometimes overly simplistic model. He concludes by comparing Will Powers, the originator of PCT, to ancient Greek atomists like Epicurus, suggesting that Powers' work deserves recognition for its prescient insights, even if it has been superseded by more advanced theories. Shorter summary

Scott examines the phenomenon of Hungarian scientific geniuses in the early 20th century, attributing it to a high concentration of high-IQ Ashkenazi Jews in Budapest rather than exceptional education. Longer summary

Scott explores the phenomenon of Hungarian scientific geniuses in the early 20th century, initially attributed to exceptional education. He debunks this theory, showing that many of these geniuses were prodigies before formal schooling. Scott then reveals that all these geniuses were Jewish, linking their success to the high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews as explained by Cochran, Hardy, and Harpending's theory. He notes that Hungary, particularly Budapest, had an unusually high concentration of Jews at that time. The post concludes by discussing the tragic end of this golden age due to the Holocaust, and speculates on whether we've lost something unique from that era of scientific progress. Shorter summary

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 Alexander analyzes a photo of Alois Alzheimer's research team, discussing the reasons for their scientific productivity and theorizing about patterns of scientific progress. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a historic photograph of Alois Alzheimer and his colleagues, noting the concentration of scientific talent in that group and era. He explores reasons for this concentration, including new histological staining techniques, the geographic and temporal context of fin de siecle Central Europe, and Emil Kraepelin's organizational skills. Scott theorizes that scientific progress often comes from exploiting a fruitful paradigm until it's exhausted, rather than continuously developing new ones. The post concludes with a brief history of Alzheimer's institute, including its unfortunate involvement with Nazi eugenics and its post-war reformation. Shorter summary

Scott explores the nature of scientific contrarianism, discussing how ideas spread through the scientific community and the challenges faced by both crackpots and legitimate contrarians. Longer summary

This post discusses the concept of contrarians and crackpots in science, exploring how ideas move through different levels of the scientific community. Scott examines cases like Gary Taubes and the serotonin theory of depression to illustrate how scientific consensus can differ at various levels. He proposes a pyramid model of scientific knowledge dissemination and discusses how contrarians might be skipping levels in this pyramid. The post then contrasts virtuous contrarians with crackpots, noting that the former often face indifference rather than opposition. Scott concludes by discussing paradigm shifts in science and how even correct contrarians often lose credit for their ideas. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander debunks a misleading graph on antibiotic discovery and presents more accurate data, discussing reasons for the decline in antibiotic development. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a misleading graph about antibiotic discovery, pointing out its numerous errors and omissions. He then presents his own data on antibiotic discovery rates, showing a decline but not as severe as the original graph suggested. The post discusses potential causes for this decline, including scientific challenges, economic factors, and regulatory issues. Scott also notes that using antibiotics as a measure of scientific progress may be unfair due to the nature of their discovery, and contrasts this with the rapid progress in antidiabetic drugs. Shorter summary