EA relies on highly-uncertain, imprecise, vulnerable-to-motivated-reasoning expected value (EV) calculations. These calculations often use probabilities derived from belief which aren’t based on empirical evidence.
Having now done a few explicit cost-effectiveness analyses myself, I can see how this point is quite important. It is easy to underestimate the uncertainty of inputs which are not much based on empirical evidence. However:
I think it motivates (even) more efforts to assess the effect of interventions, not moving away from EV calculations.
I would also say that it applies not only to explicit EV calculations, but also (or even more) to other tools/mechanism used in decision-making.
Thanks for writing this!
Having now done a few explicit cost-effectiveness analyses myself, I can see how this point is quite important. It is easy to underestimate the uncertainty of inputs which are not much based on empirical evidence. However:
I think it motivates (even) more efforts to assess the effect of interventions, not moving away from EV calculations.
I would also say that it applies not only to explicit EV calculations, but also (or even more) to other tools/mechanism used in decision-making.
Agree, I don’t advocate for moving away from EV calculations, just for improving the way we use them!