Debating Ivermectin with Scott Alexander
Added 2023-02-17 03:33:35 +0000 UTCHey guys,
Sorry but no new episode today! Matt and I had scheduling conflicts so we won't be able to finish the Maher & Rubin episode till early next week. Decoding Academia will come out next week too.
In the meantime, for anyone interested there is some DTG related content. For those of you who don't know Scott Alexander is quite a big figure in the Rationalist community. He is also controversial for a variety of reasons. I took some digs based on a recent article he wrote reflecting on the Ivermectin controversy that I felt went soft on conspiracy theorists and hard on researchers.
He took exception to some of my comments and posted an initial response that you can find here: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/contra-kavanaugh-on-fideism
And a later follow up here: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/trying-again-on-fideism
I've now written a response which is linked above. In it, I cover topics that I think are relevant to Decoding the Gurus and address a recurrent topic about the value of 'doing your own research'.
I haven't posted it on social media yet so thought I'd share it with you guys first. Let me know if you see any typos!
Comments
Yeah that’s my impression. Not sure how he can comfortably make such a bald sweeping statement that seems false but important to his argument.
Maytree
2023-02-20 00:32:45 +0000 UTCYour relative, the Supreme, has had bad publicity and so do you, so there. See SA comments. Well, I fell for that. Substack is the sinkhole of words by people who can’t get an editor? Despite having written books? Oh well.
Tom McCool
2023-02-19 10:44:50 +0000 UTCI think most considered it possible that’s about as far as it got.
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-02-19 08:29:01 +0000 UTCI'm struggling to understand his contention (in a bullet point) that there was a moment in time when most doctors and epidemiologists believed ivermectin worked. That was never my impression. Is that a well-founded assertion? SA states it as if it were solid gold . . . . . . And if true, then wouldn't that undermine some of Chris' argument.
Maytree
2023-02-18 14:55:00 +0000 UTC"Kavanagh makes fun of me... this is everything I despise". This in response to criticism, any criticism apparently. Pfff. What a fragile ego. What a bundle of rage and ressentiment. If that's "rationalism" you can keep it. SA needs to either get therapy or get a pram.
Paul Bowman
2023-02-18 10:37:46 +0000 UTCWonderful use of the Oxford comma, but, you know, given who you work for I’m guessing there’s a quota. Lacking exclamation points! Otherwise good show old chap.
elcid
2023-02-17 22:51:09 +0000 UTC"He is also controversial for a variety of reasons." - Could you give a few examples?
Tomasz
2023-02-17 15:23:43 +0000 UTCTell me where!
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-02-17 07:38:15 +0000 UTCEh, I don't think much of Scott or his crowd, but compared to what lairs of mental illness LessWrong can be, he/they could've handled this a lot worse. Good on ya. You could borrow a couple of these , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , if you like.
Exai
2023-02-17 06:43:33 +0000 UTCOtherwise did not spot any typos. Looks good!
Dave Lavelle
2023-02-17 05:39:35 +0000 UTCCould definitely use some more commas in places!
Dave Lavelle
2023-02-17 05:29:34 +0000 UTCpulling himself UP by his own bootstraps?
Dave Lavelle
2023-02-17 05:27:49 +0000 UTCI could do with one!
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-02-17 03:38:02 +0000 UTCSubstack gives me a renewed appreciation for Editors.
Bill Beatty
2023-02-17 03:36:32 +0000 UTCWatching this disagreement play out has got me noticing and trying to iron out some contradictions in my own worldview. Great to see. Will check this out.
Andy
2023-02-17 03:35:43 +0000 UTC
![Someday*[サムデイ]](https://xaiju.com/istorage/107168.jpg)
