the same criticism applies to the large Open Phil spending on specific scientific bets.
Sorry, just to clarify again (and on the topic of swearing fealty), I don’t mean any of this as a criticism of Open Phil. I agree enthusiastically with the hits-based giving point, and generally think it’s good for at least some percentage of philanthropy to be carried out without the expectation of full transparency and GiveWell-level rigor.
It’s unclear how we would expect a public forum discussion to substantially influence any of the scientific granting above.
I think that’s what I’m saying. It’s unclear to me if EA Forum, and public discussions more generally, play a role in this style of grant-making. If the answer is simply “no”, that’s okay too, but would be helpful to hear.
these orgs would be easy to talk about.
I agree that there are avenues for discussion. But it’s not totally clear to me which of these are both useful and appropriate. For example, I could write a post on whether or not the constructivist view of science is correct (FWIW I don’t believe Alexey actually holds this view), but it’s not clear that the discussion would have any bearing on the grant-worthiness of New Science.
Again, maybe EA Forum is simply not a place to discuss the grant-worthiness of HOP-style causes, but the recent discussion of Charter Cities made me think otherwise.
Again, maybe EA Forum is simply not a place to discuss the grant-worthiness of HOP-style causes, but the recent discussion of Charter Cities made me think otherwise.
I don’t think this is true or even can be true, as long as we value general discussion.
I think I have a better sense of your question and maybe I will write up a more direct answer from my perspective.
I am honestly worried my writeup will be long-winded or wrong, and I’ll wait in case someone else writes something better first.
Also, using low effort/time on your end, do you have any links to good writeup(s) on the “constructivist view of science”?
I’m worried I don’t have a real education and will get owned on a discussion related to it, the worst case while deep in some public conversation relying on it.
Sorry, just to clarify again (and on the topic of swearing fealty), I don’t mean any of this as a criticism of Open Phil. I agree enthusiastically with the hits-based giving point, and generally think it’s good for at least some percentage of philanthropy to be carried out without the expectation of full transparency and GiveWell-level rigor.
I think that’s what I’m saying. It’s unclear to me if EA Forum, and public discussions more generally, play a role in this style of grant-making. If the answer is simply “no”, that’s okay too, but would be helpful to hear.
I agree that there are avenues for discussion. But it’s not totally clear to me which of these are both useful and appropriate. For example, I could write a post on whether or not the constructivist view of science is correct (FWIW I don’t believe Alexey actually holds this view), but it’s not clear that the discussion would have any bearing on the grant-worthiness of New Science.
Again, maybe EA Forum is simply not a place to discuss the grant-worthiness of HOP-style causes, but the recent discussion of Charter Cities made me think otherwise.
Thanks!
Thanks for the thoughtful response!
I don’t think this is true or even can be true, as long as we value general discussion.
I think I have a better sense of your question and maybe I will write up a more direct answer from my perspective.
I am honestly worried my writeup will be long-winded or wrong, and I’ll wait in case someone else writes something better first.
Also, using low effort/time on your end, do you have any links to good writeup(s) on the “constructivist view of science”?
I’m worried I don’t have a real education and will get owned on a discussion related to it, the worst case while deep in some public conversation relying on it.