The review examines W.E.H. Lecky's book on the rise of rationalism in Europe, praising its scholarship and insights into the gradual shift from medieval to rational thinking. Longer summary

This review discusses W.E.H. Lecky's 'The History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe', a book that explores the decline of medieval beliefs and the emergence of rationalism in Europe. The reviewer provides context with an anecdote about a 19th-century 'demonic possession' case, then details Lecky's life and the book's creation. The review outlines the book's main thesis: that rationalism triumphed not through logic, but through gradual social, political, and industrial influences. The reviewer praises the book's scholarship, fascinating facts, and diverse historical figures, recommending it to readers interested in intellectual history. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander announces the launch of Asterisk Magazine, highlighting various articles from its first issue, including his own piece on wine tasting. Longer summary

Scott Alexander announces the launch of Asterisk Magazine, a new rationalist / effective altruist publication. He lists several articles from the first issue, including his own piece titled 'Is Wine Fake?'. The post briefly describes each article's content and author. Scott also mentions hosting a launch party where he challenged attendees to figure out the kabbalistic significance of the foods served, revealing that one item was a white wine dyed red, referencing his article on wine tasting. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses reader comments on his cyclic theory of subcultures, addressing critiques and expanding on the model's applications and limitations. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses various comments on his post about a cyclic theory of subcultures. He addresses critiques and expansions of his model, including the role of loyalists, the importance of unassailable central figures, and how movements transition between phases. Scott also reflects on the current state of rationalism and effective altruism, provides his timeline for the rationalist movement, and explores the concept of status in subcultures. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques Glen Weyl's anti-technocracy essay, arguing for a more nuanced view of formal mechanisms in decision-making and defending rationalist approaches. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques Glen Weyl's essay 'Why I Am Not A Technocrat', arguing that Weyl's definition of technocracy is incoherent and his examples don't fit his own definition. Scott breaks down the concept of technocracy into several axes, including top-down vs. bottom-up, mechanism vs. judgment, and expert vs. popular opinion. He argues that formal mechanisms can be valuable in preventing bias and corruption, using examples like district creation and college admissions. Scott also defends the rationalist and effective altruism communities against Weyl's criticisms, highlighting their successes in areas like pandemic preparedness. He concludes that while critiques of technocracy are important, it's crucial to avoid oversimplifying the issue and to recognize that sometimes technocratic approaches can be beneficial. Shorter summary

Glen Weyl responds to Scott Alexander's critique of his technocracy essay, clarifying his position and defending his arguments while acknowledging some limitations. Longer summary

Glen Weyl responds to Scott Alexander's critique of his essay on technocracy, clarifying his position and addressing several points of contention. Weyl acknowledges some limitations in his understanding of the rationalist community, provides context for his original piece, and defends his examples of technocratic failures. He argues for a more nuanced view of mechanism design and technology adoption, emphasizing the importance of public communication and collaboration in successful technological change. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander clarifies that his blog Slate Star Codex is not strictly representative of the rationalist community, and addresses common misconceptions about the blog's relationship to rationalism and effective altruism. Longer summary

Scott Alexander clarifies several points about his blog Slate Star Codex (SSC) and its relationship to the rationalist community. He emphasizes that SSC is not strictly a 'rationalist blog', comparing it to a 'rationalist picnic' rather than a 'rationalist monastery'. Scott expresses skepticism about claims of rationality's practical utility in everyday life, and points readers to other resources for more intensive rationalist and effective altruist content. He stresses that while he's not distancing himself from the rationalist community, SSC should not be seen as representative of or equivalent to the broader rationalist movement. The post aims to address common misconceptions and set appropriate expectations for readers. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander presents a collection of negative and often insulting testimonials about himself and his blog Slate Star Codex, showcasing criticism of his writing, personality, and perceived ideologies. Longer summary

This post is a collection of negative testimonials about Scott Alexander and his blog Slate Star Codex. The testimonials range from critical comments to outright insults, covering various aspects of Scott's writing, personality, and perceived ideological stances. The post is presented in a humorous and self-deprecating manner, with Scott showcasing these negative comments about himself and his work. The testimonials touch on topics such as politics, rationality, autism, and Scott's writing style, often in harsh or offensive language. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explains postmodernism to rationalists, using the Dark Age debate as an example, and discusses its applications, risks, and critiques. Longer summary

Scott Alexander attempts to explain postmodernism to rationalists, using the debate about the existence of a European Dark Age as an example. He describes postmodernism as focusing on how politically-motivated people weave facts to tell specific stories, rather than on the facts themselves. The post discusses how this applies to various fields and how everyone uses postmodernist thinking sometimes. Scott also explores the potential risks of postmodernism collapsing into ignoring disagreeable facts and addresses critiques of the philosophy. He concludes by comparing rationalist and postmodernist approaches to dealing with subjectivity and bias. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends rationalists against common criticisms, arguing that the movement is self-aware and actively tries to avoid past mistakes while striving for improvement. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to common criticisms of rationalists, economists, and psychiatrists. He argues that these criticisms are often outdated or based on misunderstandings, and that the fields in question are usually well aware of their own shortcomings. He focuses on the rationalist community, explaining that they actively try to avoid the mistakes of past movements, are aware of potential pitfalls, and strive for constant self-improvement and error minimization. Scott emphasizes that while the rationalist movement is likely still making mistakes, they are new ones rather than the obvious errors that critics often assume. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews 'Seeing Like A State', examining how state efforts to standardize and control societies often backfire by ignoring local knowledge. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews 'Seeing Like A State' by James Scott, which examines how states have historically tried to make societies more 'legible' through standardization and top-down planning, often with disastrous results. The book covers examples from forestry, urban planning, agriculture and more, contrasting the failures of high modernist schemes with the success of local, traditional knowledge (metis). While acknowledging some benefits of standardization, the review explores the book's critique of overzealous state planning that ignores local conditions and wisdom. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explains his defensiveness as a response to unfair critiques that risk pushing groups into irredeemable disrepute, and grapples with how to address this issue. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses his recent defensiveness towards critiques of rationalism and effective altruism. He explains that his defensiveness stems from a fear of groups being unfairly portrayed and pushed into an 'event horizon' of irredeemable toxicity. The post outlines how this process works, using Christianity as a hypothetical example, and how it can lead to the degradation of reasonable discourse. Scott struggles with the dilemma of either constantly defending against unfair critiques (and appearing defensive) or risking his preferred groups sliding into disrepute. He expresses a desire for a third option that avoids both these outcomes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander refutes a blog post criticizing rationalism, arguing it misunderstands the movement and its core values of empiricism, scholarship, and humility. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a blog post titled 'Why I Am Not A Rationalist' on Almost Diamonds, arguing that it fundamentally misunderstands both classical rationalism (Descartes) and modern rationalism (Yudkowsky). He points out that the blog post accuses rationalists of lacking empiricism, scholarship, and humility, when these are in fact core values of the rationalist movement. Scott provides numerous examples to demonstrate the rationalist community's commitment to these principles. He concludes by explaining why rationality skills are necessary in addition to empirical knowledge, especially when dealing with limited or conflicting information. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander rewrites classic fairy tales to illustrate transhumanist and rationalist concepts, each ending with a moral lesson related to these philosophies. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a series of reimagined fairy tales with transhumanist and rationalist morals. Each story is a twist on a classic tale, concluding with a lesson related to concepts like exponential growth, decision theory, artificial intelligence risks, and self-modification. The stories are brief and satirical, using familiar narratives to illustrate complex ideas from rationalist and transhumanist thought. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander announces the launch of MetaMed, a company offering personalized medical research, and describes his positive experiences with their rational approach to medical questions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander announces the official launch of MetaMed, a company offering personalized medical research. He describes his experiences with the company, highlighting their commitment to solving difficult medical questions without taking shortcuts. Scott mentions a recent journal club discussion on antioxidants and multivitamins, and praises the company's rational approach to evaluating alternative medicine. He compares MetaMed to existing medical information aggregators like UpToDate, emedicine, and Wikipedia, suggesting that MetaMed could supplement these sources with rationalist medical analysis and personalized research. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends logical positivism, arguing that despite its flaws, it points to useful ideas about dividing meaningful statements into scientific and logical categories. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a defense of logical positivism, a philosophical stance generally considered outdated. He argues that while logical positivism may not be entirely correct, it points to a cluster of correct ideas. The post draws parallels between logical positivism, Hume's fork, and modern rationalist thinking, suggesting they all divide meaningful statements into something like science and something like logic. Scott argues this division is productive and helps identify meaningless statements. He then attempts to apply this framework to traditionally challenging areas like mathematics, morality, and counterfactuals. The post concludes by addressing the common criticism that logical positivism fails its own criteria, suggesting that its value might lie in its ability to facilitate productive debate. Shorter summary