Scott Alexander critiques the use of bias arguments in debates, explaining why they're often counterproductive and suggesting more constructive ways to address bias. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the problems with using bias arguments in debates. He argues that these arguments are often unproductive because everyone is biased, people are hypersensitive to biases against their side, it's hard to define bias, and bias arguments don't lead anywhere productive. He suggests that bias arguments can be useful when they provide new information, can be quantified, offer unbiased alternatives, or in private conversations between trusted friends. Scott emphasizes that first-person bias arguments (recognizing one's own biases) are the most valuable, as they allow for honest self-reflection and improvement. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the concept of 'Kolmogorov complicity' and its implications for scientific inquiry under oppressive orthodoxies, using historical and hypothetical examples. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'Kolmogorov complicity' in relation to historical and contemporary scientific orthodoxies. He begins by examining myths about scientists persecuted by the Church, noting that while some scientists were indeed punished, it was often for reasons beyond their scientific work. The post then discusses the 'Kolmogorov option,' where scientists strategically comply with political demands while privately pursuing truth. Alexander argues that this approach, while sometimes necessary, can lead to systemic problems in truth-seeking and education. He uses a hypothetical scenario about lightning and thunder to illustrate how even a seemingly harmless orthodoxy can corrupt scientific inquiry and societal knowledge. The post concludes by suggesting the need for 'whisper networks' to maintain truth-seeking in the face of problematic orthodoxies, while acknowledging the challenges and risks involved in such an approach. Shorter summary

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. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques two articles arguing that facts and logic are ineffective in changing people's minds, especially regarding political issues. He contends that true debate, following specific conditions he outlines, is rarely attempted and could be more effective than assumed. He suggests that collaborative truth-seeking and adversarial collaborations could be powerful tools for the media. Alexander argues that logical debate is an asymmetric weapon favoring truth, unlike rhetoric or violence which can be used equally by all sides. He concludes that while improving debate quality is a slow process, it's necessary for long-term progress in distinguishing truth from falsehood. Shorter summary