I think this post is on an important topic that needs further discussion, but I don’t think it applies to the post and comment that prompted it in a few ways.
1) The argument about not sharing those particular poorly thought out criticisms was that we need higher standards on Lesswrong, not that it would lead to any sort of existential crisis.
2) Discussing governmental failures, which is important, is different than actively advocating that people who don’t know anything about COVID-19 would be better off not listening to the CDC in the future. The post explicitly does the latter, which seems to be far worse.
3) The post wasn’t providing true and reasonable criticising the CDC’s response—something I have agreed with—it instead was riddled with a number of unreasonable criticisms and factual errors. I criticized these repeatedly, and have gotten very little pushback in the comments so far, except for one edit to the post that clarified that the earlier implication was misleading.
Also, I’m trying to understand your thinking. Is this an accurate representation of what you’re saying?
While in general, people are allowed to write up poorly thought-out criticism of major governmental institutions during a time of crisis and to advocate against that governmental institution, on LessWrong people should be obligated to ensure the criticism is true before saying it and making that kind of advocacy, because we try to be better than elsewhere.
If the authors of this post had questions about whether their criticism was true or whether this was a good time to say the criticism, they should have vetted it with the biosecurity x-risk people at FHI and OpenPhil before publishing, and given that they didn’t do this basic ethical check, the post should be removed until such a time as they do (and they must edit in any advice received).
on LessWrong people should be obligated to ensure the criticism is true before saying it
I understood Davidmanheim to be arguing that it was true, but that they shouldn’t have said it; that is, the standard is it being positive EV, not factually accurate. [Or, at least, that the truth wasn’t the crux, and the EV was the crux.]
I think this post is on an important topic that needs further discussion, but I don’t think it applies to the post and comment that prompted it in a few ways.
1) The argument about not sharing those particular poorly thought out criticisms was that we need higher standards on Lesswrong, not that it would lead to any sort of existential crisis.
2) Discussing governmental failures, which is important, is different than actively advocating that people who don’t know anything about COVID-19 would be better off not listening to the CDC in the future. The post explicitly does the latter, which seems to be far worse.
3) The post wasn’t providing true and reasonable criticising the CDC’s response—something I have agreed with—it instead was riddled with a number of unreasonable criticisms and factual errors. I criticized these repeatedly, and have gotten very little pushback in the comments so far, except for one edit to the post that clarified that the earlier implication was misleading.
Can you copy this comment to the comment thread as well so I can follow up on the post? Edit: Actually nvm, happy to talk here.
Also, I’m trying to understand your thinking. Is this an accurate representation of what you’re saying?
I understood Davidmanheim to be arguing that it was true, but that they shouldn’t have said it; that is, the standard is it being positive EV, not factually accurate. [Or, at least, that the truth wasn’t the crux, and the EV was the crux.]