Contra Hallquist On Scientific Rationality
Read the original on Slate Star Codex →
Summary
A long rebuttal to Topher Hallquist's 'LessWrong is against scientific rationality' critique — Part II a point-by-point fisking (Yudkowsky on Many-Worlds, philosophy, cryonics, and diet, where Scott corrects Hallquist's misreading of Taubes and lands the memorable 'Clozaril-in-orange-soda' model of disrupted satiety), Part III the substance. The core defense: the Sequences aren't a claim you can 'wish away' hard problems — 'They're a cry for textbooks' for a learnable Art Of Thinking Clearly; domain knowledge without rationality gives you PhDs proving vaccines cause autism; and 'don't worry about rationality, trust the experts' collapses the day someone hands you a lab coat and two top experts give you opposite answers ('Congratulations, you're an expert! ...Well, frick'). Frames LessWrong as wanting science stricter, not weaker (Science Isn't Strict Enough), and flags the isolated-demand-for-rigor in Hallquist's attack.
Why this score
Quality 73 · Strong. Strong (73): a thorough, in places excellent defense of the rationalist project (the 'cry for textbooks' and 'you're an expert now' framings are memorable and much-cited); held FIRM below Excellent as a long point-by-point fisking/drama piece tied to one critic.
Claude’s paradigm shift 54 · Moderate. Moderate (54): the rationality-as-cry-for-textbooks and science-needs-to-go-further framings are a fresh, clarifying articulation of the project.
Real-world impact 3 · Moderate. Moderate (3): circulates in rationalist self-understanding discussion; the 'cry for textbooks' framing has real currency in the subculture.