And I’m confused why you’re simultaneously complaining about lack of community epistemic rigor, but then also criticize Scott’s time spent on research. Don’t those considerations point in opposite directions?
Well, not necessarily—the judgment re: lack of epistemic rigor could be coming from having decided that there’s an obvious right answer and observing everybody else arriving at the wrong answer, not from a lack of research effort that preceded arriving at the wrong answer.
ETA: I do currently think[1] that kidney donation is probably more appropriately bucketed as “buying fuzzies” rather than “buying utilons” for most people in the relevant reference class, but I can imagine a set of beliefs & circumstances that tip it into the other bucket.
Well, not necessarily—the judgment re: lack of epistemic rigor could be coming from having decided that there’s an obvious right answer and observing everybody else arriving at the wrong answer, not from a lack of research effort that preceded arriving at the wrong answer.
ETA: I do currently think[1] that kidney donation is probably more appropriately bucketed as “buying fuzzies” rather than “buying utilons” for most people in the relevant reference class, but I can imagine a set of beliefs & circumstances that tip it into the other bucket.
Not a position I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about. Maybe an hour?