This is applying a standard that would have gotten much of Eliezer’s original sequences kicked over to discussion had the distinction existed at the time.
I’m not sure I agree with you. But as you point out, Discussion didn’t exist back then—it may well be that some of those posts would be more appropriate for Discussion than for Main! Discussion doesn’t mean “bad quality” or “LW-lite,” it’s just a different board for different topics.
There’s also the fact that main motivation for this post series was to help address the question of how far we can trust mainstream scientific consensus. Indeed, in large part it’s a response to a claim made by Eliezer in “The Correct Contrarian Cluster.”
I upvoted your original post—I saw it as marginal for Main, but certainly interesting and potentially relevant. However, the following posts talked less and less about rationality and more and more about specific disputes in nutrition science, which made me think that the series as a whole would be better in Discussion rather than Main.
I’m not sure I agree with you. But as you point out, Discussion didn’t exist back then—it may well be that some of those posts would be more appropriate for Discussion than for Main! Discussion doesn’t mean “bad quality” or “LW-lite,” it’s just a different board for different topics.
I upvoted your original post—I saw it as marginal for Main, but certainly interesting and potentially relevant. However, the following posts talked less and less about rationality and more and more about specific disputes in nutrition science, which made me think that the series as a whole would be better in Discussion rather than Main.