If the evidence all suggests that GiveDirectly’s reports are accurate, then it is the responsibility of pledge-takers to take that information into account in selecting their target charity.
Right. Given the strong mean reversion shown in intervention effectiveness I think it is not totally unreasonable to doubt that evidence. Personally I think GiveDirectly is credible but I don’t think this is the only epistemically justifiable position to take.
Taking the pledge means doing your best (or putting in a nontrivial effort) to figure out the best cause, and then giving to that cause; but as long as you end up with a non-ridiculous candidate, you’ve probably met that standard.
But the pledge isn’t merely to attempt to do so—it is to actually do it!
Right. Given the strong mean reversion shown in intervention effectiveness I think it is not totally unreasonable to doubt that evidence. Personally I think GiveDirectly is credible but I don’t think this is the only epistemically justifiable position to take.
But the pledge isn’t merely to attempt to do so—it is to actually do it!