Scott Alexander analyzes EA's approach to criticism, arguing that specific, targeted critiques are more valuable than vague, paradigmatic ones for driving real change. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the phenomenon of Effective Altruism's (EA) seemingly excessive openness to criticism. He argues that while EA appears to welcome criticism, much of it is paradigmatic and vague, leading to little actionable change. He contrasts this with specific, targeted criticisms that actually challenge individuals and practices, which he believes are more likely to lead to real improvements. Scott uses examples from psychiatry and EA to illustrate his point, suggesting that embracing vague criticisms can lead to inefficiency and a move away from precise, effective practices. He concludes by discussing the nature of paradigm shifts, arguing that they arise from specific anomalies rather than broad, ideological critiques. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines various interpretations of rationality, concluding it might be best understood as 'the study of study' - a meta-level examination of truth-seeking methods. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores different interpretations of rationality and the debate between rationalists and anti-rationalists. He examines rationality as full computation vs. heuristics, explicit computation vs. intuition, and Yudkowsky's definition of 'systematized winning'. The post concludes by suggesting rationality might be best understood as 'the study of study' - a meta-level examination of truth-seeking methods. This perspective explains why rationality is often associated with explicit calculation, despite the importance of intuition and heuristics in practical decision-making. The post argues that while intuitive methods may often be effective, the formal study of rationality allows for replication, scaling, and innovation in ways that intuition alone cannot. 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

This review of Galen's 'On the Natural Faculties' challenges common misconceptions about the ancient physician, portraying him as more empirical and scientifically-minded than typically believed. Longer summary

This review explores Galen's 'On the Natural Faculties', providing context on Galen's life and work, and challenging common misconceptions about him. The author finds Galen to be more empirical and scientifically-minded than typically portrayed, with a nuanced understanding of biology and medicine for his time. The review discusses Galen's arguments against rival schools of thought, his emphasis on observation and experimentation, and his concept of 'Nature' as a precursor to evolutionary thinking. It also examines possible reasons for Galen's tarnished reputation in modern times, suggesting it may be due to later misinterpretations of his work or shifts in scientific paradigms. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that non-empirical reasoning, based on principles like simplicity and elegance, is a necessary and legitimate part of scientific practice, even for evaluating seemingly untestable theories. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the role of non-empirical arguments in science, challenging the view that untestable theories are inherently unscientific. He argues that even in cases where direct empirical testing is impossible, scientists use principles like simplicity and elegance (often formalized as Occam's Razor) to evaluate competing theories. Scott uses examples ranging from paleontology vs. creationism to multiverse theories in physics to demonstrate that this type of reasoning is both necessary and legitimate in scientific practice. He concludes that while there may be debates about the best way to formalize or apply these principles, it's crucial to recognize that some form of non-empirical reasoning is an inescapable part of the scientific process. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander announces a contest for adversarial collaborations, offering prizes for teams who write balanced summaries on controversial topics they disagree about. Longer summary

Scott Alexander proposes a contest for adversarial collaborations, where two people with opposing views on a topic work together to write a balanced summary of the evidence. The goal is to provide readers with a fair assessment of controversial issues. Scott offers a $1000 prize for the best collaboration, with potential for a $250 second-place prize. He outlines rules for the contest, including writing as a united front, coming to a unified conclusion, and allowing publication on Slate Star Codex. The post encourages participants to find collaborators in the comments section and suggests topics could range from political issues to medicine, history, or religion. 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

Scott Alexander argues that psychology is indeed in crisis, contrary to a New York Times article's claim, due to issues like publication bias and low replication rates. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a New York Times article claiming psychology is not in crisis despite low replication rates. He argues that the article ignores publication bias, experimenter effects, and low base rates of true hypotheses. Scott contends that even if failed replications are due to different conditions, this still represents a crisis as it undermines the practical utility of psychological findings. He suggests that while we can't investigate every failed replication, studying some might reveal why replication issues keep occurring in psychology. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends Less Wrong and Eliezer Yudkowsky against accusations of being anti-scientific, arguing that developing rational thinking skills beyond traditional scientific methods is valuable and necessary. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Topher Hallquist's criticism of Less Wrong and Eliezer Yudkowsky as being 'anti-scientific rationality'. Scott argues that Hallquist's criticisms are often unfair or inaccurate, taking quotes out of context or misunderstanding Yudkowsky's positions. He defends the rationalist community's efforts to develop better thinking tools that go beyond traditional scientific methods, while still respecting science. Scott contends that developing an 'Art of Thinking Clearly' is valuable and necessary, especially for experts who have to make difficult judgments. He argues Less Wrong is not against science, but wants to strengthen and supplement it with additional rational thinking skills. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander proposes a utopian scientific system using prediction markets and impartial researchers to eliminate bias and efficiently resolve controversies. Longer summary

Scott Alexander describes a utopian scientific system in the fictional culture of Raikoth. In this system, anyone can do exploratory research, but confirmatory experiments are funded through prediction markets and conducted by impartial consultant scientists. The system includes pre-registration of experiments, public statements of predictions by experts, and financial incentives for accurate predictions. This approach aims to eliminate bias, increase transparency, and efficiently resolve scientific controversies. The post ends by highlighting the benefits of such a system, including the elimination of pseudoscience and the creation of a comprehensive, dynamic list of scientific hypotheses and their probabilities. Shorter summary

The author humorously responds to a common argument against evidence-based medicine, suggesting a parachute experiment with a twist. Longer summary

This post is a humorous take on the common argument against evidence-based medicine that uses parachutes as an example. The author playfully suggests using those who make this argument as the control group in a parachute experiment, but then acknowledges that this would be unethical as groups need to be determined by random assignment. The post uses irony to subtly critique the flawed logic often used to dismiss evidence-based medicine. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the claim that '90% of medical research is false', arguing it's an exaggeration while acknowledging real issues in the field. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the popular claim that '90% of medical research is false', which is often attributed to John Ioannidis. He argues that this statement, while pointing to important issues, creates more panic than warranted. Scott analyzes Ioannidis' work, showing that the 90% figure is likely misinterpreted from various sources. He explains that the accuracy of medical research varies greatly depending on the type of study, with large randomized trials and meta-analyses being much more reliable. Scott also discusses how multiple studies on the same topic can greatly increase confidence in results, and how doctors' beliefs are typically based on substantial evidence rather than single studies. He concludes by acknowledging the problems in medical research while cautioning against overly cynical interpretations. Shorter summary