Decoding The Gurus
patreon
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
Maytree
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.
Tom McCool
Your 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.
Christopher Kavanagh
I think most considered it possible that’s about as far as it got.
Maytree
I'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.
Paul Bowman
"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.
elcid
Wonderful 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.
Tomasz
"He is also controversial for a variety of reasons." - Could you give a few examples?
Christopher Kavanagh
Tell me where!
Exai
Eh, 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.
Dave Lavelle
Otherwise did not spot any typos. Looks good!
Dave Lavelle
Could definitely use some more commas in places!
Dave Lavelle
pulling himself UP by his own bootstraps?
Christopher Kavanagh
I could do with one!
Bill Beatty
Substack gives me a renewed appreciation for Editors.
Andy
Watching 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.
