I agree he’s not offering alternatives, as I mentioned previously. It would be good if Leif gave examples of better tradeoffs.
I still think your claim is too strongly stated. I don’t think Leif criticizing GW orgs means he is discouraging life saving aid as a whole, or that people will predictably die as a result. The counterfactual is not clear (and it’s very difficult to measure).
More defensible claims would be :
People are less likely to donate to GW recommended orgs
People will be more skeptical of bednets / (any intervention he critiques) and less likely to support organization implementing them
People will be less likely to donate to AMF / New Incentives / (any other org he specifically discussed or critiqued)
People may be more skeptical of LMIC philanthropy more generally because they feel overwhelmed by the possible risks, and donate less to it (this statement is closest to your original claim. For what it’s worth, this is his least original claim and people already have many reasons to be skeptical, so I’d be wary of attributing too much credit to Leif here)
My claim is not “too strongly stated”: it accurately states my view, which you haven’t even shown to be incorrect(let alone “unfair” or not “defensible”—both significantly higher bars to establish than merely being incorrect!)
It’s always easier to make weaker claims, but that raises the risk of failing to make an important true claim that was worth making. Cf. epistemic cheems mindset.
I agree he’s not offering alternatives, as I mentioned previously. It would be good if Leif gave examples of better tradeoffs.
I still think your claim is too strongly stated. I don’t think Leif criticizing GW orgs means he is discouraging life saving aid as a whole, or that people will predictably die as a result. The counterfactual is not clear (and it’s very difficult to measure).
More defensible claims would be :
People are less likely to donate to GW recommended orgs
People will be more skeptical of bednets / (any intervention he critiques) and less likely to support organization implementing them
People will be less likely to donate to AMF / New Incentives / (any other org he specifically discussed or critiqued)
People may be more skeptical of LMIC philanthropy more generally because they feel overwhelmed by the possible risks, and donate less to it (this statement is closest to your original claim. For what it’s worth, this is his least original claim and people already have many reasons to be skeptical, so I’d be wary of attributing too much credit to Leif here)
My claim is not “too strongly stated”: it accurately states my view, which you haven’t even shown to be incorrect (let alone “unfair” or not “defensible”—both significantly higher bars to establish than merely being incorrect!)
It’s always easier to make weaker claims, but that raises the risk of failing to make an important true claim that was worth making. Cf. epistemic cheems mindset.