My quick take onto why this was downvoted would be because someone may have glanced at it quickly and assumed you were being negative to MIRI or EA.
I think around being “Science-aligned”, the post means using the principals and learnings of the scientific method and similar tools, rather than agreeing with “the majority of scientists” or similar.
The mainstream scientific community seems also likely to be skeptical of EA, but that doesn’t mean that EA would have to therefore be similarly skeptical of itself.
That said, of course whether one follows the scientific method and similar for some practices, especially in cases where they aren’t backed by many other communities, could be rather up for debate.
My quick take onto why this was downvoted would be because someone may have glanced at it quickly and assumed you were being negative to MIRI or EA.
I think around being “Science-aligned”, the post means using the principals and learnings of the scientific method and similar tools, rather than agreeing with “the majority of scientists” or similar.
The mainstream scientific community seems also likely to be skeptical of EA, but that doesn’t mean that EA would have to therefore be similarly skeptical of itself.
That said, of course whether one follows the scientific method and similar for some practices, especially in cases where they aren’t backed by many other communities, could be rather up for debate.