I wonder if one reason SMTM might be advocating improbable theories, and not accepting bets, is because they are intentionally persuing improbable theories. Their post on scurvy seems to make the point that you need to check things even if they seem improbable, as the truth sometimes turns out to be something that seemed improbable.
I (perhaps charitably) assumed they did not believe the lithium theory per se, but thought it was worth a more detailed look—having previously argued that the bar for that should be lower than others think.
I thought the lithium theory and the potato diet were just two of many possible things they might be looking into, with the idea being that they advocate a broader search generally.
It’s very clear to me that it’s fine (and often great!) to investigate implausible theories. It just seems to me that the SMTM authors are doing a very bad job at actually pursuing the truth, as demonstrated by the facts that, e.g.
they wrote a “literature review” that only includes studies that are outliers, refused to address the fact that they are outliers, and are actively trying to prevent their readers from knowing that (by refusing to approve my comment on their post despite having had the time to approve several comments that were made afterward)
they have misrepresented their sources several times (as I show in this section and this comment) and have refused to correct their posts after being told about it
they seem oddly uninterested in all of the other common side effects that lithium causes at therapeutic doses, even though it’s very easy to know that those side effects are significant by merely reading the Wikipedia page on lithium salts
they seem oddly uninterested in whether therapeutic doses of lithium cause enough weight gain to explain the obesity epidemic
I also think it would be more helpful if they told readers their credences on their hypotheses, and what led them to reach those credences. But this is a minor point compared to the 4 above.
I think you’re making an unsupported inferential leap in concluding “they seem oddly uninterested in …”.
I would not expect to know why they haven’t responded to my comments, even if I did bring up a good point – as you definitely have.
I don’t know, e.g. what their plans are, whether they even are the kind of blogger that edits posts versus write new follow-up posts instead, how much free time they have, whether they interpreted a comment as being hostile and thus haven’t replied, etc..
You make good points. But I would be scared if you ‘came after me’ as you seem to be doing to the SMTM authors!
I agree. Their ‘candidate explanations’ felt unsatisfying when I got to them, because they spend so much time building up what a good explanation would necessarily feel like. Maybe that was the goal, but if it was, they didn’t make it explicit.
I wonder if one reason SMTM might be advocating improbable theories, and not accepting bets, is because they are intentionally persuing improbable theories. Their post on scurvy seems to make the point that you need to check things even if they seem improbable, as the truth sometimes turns out to be something that seemed improbable.
I (perhaps charitably) assumed they did not believe the lithium theory per se, but thought it was worth a more detailed look—having previously argued that the bar for that should be lower than others think.
I thought the lithium theory and the potato diet were just two of many possible things they might be looking into, with the idea being that they advocate a broader search generally.
It’s very clear to me that it’s fine (and often great!) to investigate implausible theories. It just seems to me that the SMTM authors are doing a very bad job at actually pursuing the truth, as demonstrated by the facts that, e.g.
they wrote a “literature review” that only includes studies that are outliers, refused to address the fact that they are outliers, and are actively trying to prevent their readers from knowing that (by refusing to approve my comment on their post despite having had the time to approve several comments that were made afterward)
they have misrepresented their sources several times (as I show in this section and this comment) and have refused to correct their posts after being told about it
they seem oddly uninterested in all of the other common side effects that lithium causes at therapeutic doses, even though it’s very easy to know that those side effects are significant by merely reading the Wikipedia page on lithium salts
they seem oddly uninterested in whether therapeutic doses of lithium cause enough weight gain to explain the obesity epidemic
I also think it would be more helpful if they told readers their credences on their hypotheses, and what led them to reach those credences. But this is a minor point compared to the 4 above.
I think – personally – you’re holding them to an unrealistically high standard!
When I compare SMTM to the/a modal person or even a modal ‘rationalist’, I think they’re doing a fantastic job.
Please consider being at least a little more charitable and, e.g. ‘leaving people a line of retreat’.
We want to encourage each other to be better, NOT to discourage them from trying at all! :)
I think you’re making an unsupported inferential leap in concluding “they seem oddly uninterested in …”.
I would not expect to know why they haven’t responded to my comments, even if I did bring up a good point – as you definitely have.
I don’t know, e.g. what their plans are, whether they even are the kind of blogger that edits posts versus write new follow-up posts instead, how much free time they have, whether they interpreted a comment as being hostile and thus haven’t replied, etc..
You make good points. But I would be scared if you ‘came after me’ as you seem to be doing to the SMTM authors!
I agree. Their ‘candidate explanations’ felt unsatisfying when I got to them, because they spend so much time building up what a good explanation would necessarily feel like. Maybe that was the goal, but if it was, they didn’t make it explicit.