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 comments on his 'Don't Look Up' movie review, addressing criticisms and exploring various interpretations of the film. Longer summary

Scott Alexander summarizes and responds to comments on his review of the movie 'Don't Look Up'. He acknowledges some valid criticisms of his review, discusses the feasibility of deflecting comets as portrayed in the film, explores the movie's political stance, and shares interesting observations from viewers. The post includes discussions on the movie's scientific accuracy, its portrayal of peer review, and speculations about which real-life tech CEO a character might be based on. Shorter summary

Scott provides a real-world example of how the phrase 'no evidence' can be misused in science reporting, contrasting it with a prediction market's more nuanced response. Longer summary

This post is an addendum to Scott's previous article about the misuse of the phrase 'no evidence' in science communication. He provides a recent example from the Financial Times, which claimed there was 'no evidence' that the Omicron variant of COVID-19 was less deadly than Delta, based on a single study. Scott contrasts this with the Metaculus prediction market's response to the same study, showing how the market briefly dipped but quickly recovered and increased its prediction that Omicron was indeed less lethal. He presents this as a clear illustration of the difference between classical (frequentist) and Bayesian approaches to evidence and probability. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes the misleading use of 'no evidence' in science communication and suggests more nuanced alternatives. Longer summary

The post critiques the use of the phrase 'no evidence' in science communication, arguing that it's misleading and erodes public trust. Scott Alexander shows how the phrase is used inconsistently to mean both 'plausible but not yet proven' and 'definitively false'. He explains that this stems from a misunderstanding of how real truth-seeking works, which should be Bayesian rather than based on a simplistic null hypothesis model. The post concludes by suggesting better ways for journalists to communicate scientific uncertainty, including being more specific about the state of evidence and engaging with the arguments of those who believe differently. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander offers a style guide to help writers avoid sounding overly robotic or scientific when discussing everyday topics, providing specific word replacements and usage guidelines. Longer summary

Scott Alexander provides a style guide for writing about science and rationality without sounding like an 'evil robot'. He advises using everyday terms instead of scientific jargon when discussing everyday life, to avoid alienating readers. The post lists 11 specific recommendations, such as replacing 'IQ' with 'intelligence', 'humans' with 'people', and 'males/females' with 'men/women'. He also suggests avoiding terms like 'rational', 'optimal', and 'utility' in favor of more common alternatives. The guide aims to make writing more accessible and relatable, especially when discussing topics that might already seem nerdy or out-of-touch. Shorter summary

An explorer tries to save himself from cannibals by claiming he can blot out the sun during a partial solar eclipse, leading to humorous misunderstandings and frustration. Longer summary

This post is a fictional story about an explorer who tries to convince a tribe of savages not to eat him by claiming he can blot out the sun. He attempts to demonstrate this using a pinhole projector during a partial solar eclipse, but the savages are skeptical due to the subtlety of the effect. The explorer struggles to explain the phenomenon and becomes increasingly frustrated. Eventually, the chieftain agrees to let him go if he makes the sun return. The explorer leaves but returns shortly after, preferring to be eaten rather than face the traffic on the road out. The story is a humorous take on the challenges of communicating scientific concepts across cultural barriers and the sometimes underwhelming nature of natural phenomena. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques media reporting of scientific studies, showing how the same study can lead to vastly different headlines and interpretations, often misrepresenting the actual findings. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques media reporting of scientific studies, focusing on two examples: a study about parental time spent with children and another about weight discrimination. He shows how different media outlets can present the same study with vastly different, even contradictory headlines. In the weight discrimination study, he points out how the actual findings were much less significant than the media portrayed, with many important measures showing no discrimination. Scott argues that the process from conducting a study to its media reporting allows for too many 'degrees of freedom', resulting in headlines that may not accurately reflect the study's actual findings. He concludes by emphasizing the importance of reading beyond headlines and abstracts to understand scientific studies accurately. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander humorously proposes a reality TV show called 'Replication Lab!' to address the crisis of replication in psychology by making the process more entertaining. Longer summary

Scott Alexander proposes a humorous solution to the crisis of replication in psychology: a reality TV show called 'Replication Lab!'. The show would attempt to replicate famous experiments each week, turning the unglamorous task of replication into entertaining television. The post describes a hypothetical episode, complete with dramatic tension, human interest stories, and the potential for career-ruining failures to replicate. The satirical proposal aims to make replication more appealing and address the serious issue of unreliable research in a lighthearted way. Shorter summary