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 criticizes a NYT article on sugar industry influence, arguing that such bias is common across food industries and doesn't justify completely reversing nutritional advice. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the New York Times article about sugar industry influence on nutrition research. He argues that while the sugar industry did sponsor biased research, this is common practice across all food industries, including the dairy and meat industries which promote pro-fat research. He suggests that the NYT article overstates the significance of this one instance of sugar industry influence, and that nutrition science has been shaped by an ongoing 'war' between various food industry lobbies. The post cautions against overcorrecting based on this single revelation and emphasizes the complexity of nutrition research and its funding. 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 dissects a hoax chocolate study to critique common misconceptions about nutrition science, study design, and statistical methods. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes a viral study claiming chocolate aids weight loss, which was revealed as a hoax designed to expose poor science journalism. He critiques four common but incorrect conclusions drawn from this incident: that people were gullible for believing it, that nutrition isn't a real science, that studies always need high sample sizes, and that p-values should be eliminated. Scott argues that there is previous research supporting chocolate's health benefits, that nutrition science uses multiple study types to build evidence, that sample size importance depends on the effect being studied, and that p-values have their place in research. He agrees with the fifth conclusion that science journalism should be trusted less, but notes that some sources like Wikipedia and specialized blogs are more reliable. Shorter summary