Yeah, I think your reaction to it was what my position used to be Tristan. But I think each article like this, even if clickbaity, provides another ‘brick in the wall’ against EA. Now I think it’s a flimsy wall given the weak nature of the arguments, but it should still be demolished before it becomes too thick imo.
The point about not engaging in an attention war is valid, so I’d be willing to consider alternative ways of writing these pieces, not as ‘dunks of anti-EA people’ put more as picking out particular arguments from these pieces that I think are common but unconvincing as anti-EA arguments[1]. In other words, being very clear about ‘playing the ball and not the man’
Would be great to hear your thoughts, but thanks for reading :)
Yeah, I think your reaction to it was what my position used to be Tristan. But I think each article like this, even if clickbaity, provides another ‘brick in the wall’ against EA. Now I think it’s a flimsy wall given the weak nature of the arguments, but it should still be demolished before it becomes too thick imo.
The point about not engaging in an attention war is valid, so I’d be willing to consider alternative ways of writing these pieces, not as ‘dunks of anti-EA people’ put more as picking out particular arguments from these pieces that I think are common but unconvincing as anti-EA arguments[1]. In other words, being very clear about ‘playing the ball and not the man’
Would be great to hear your thoughts, but thanks for reading :)
I use ‘arguments’ twice in this sentance but I think I mean too different things:
1) an argument as a piece of evidence, e.g. this thought experiment makes us doubt consequentialism
2) an argument as a general theory about morality/behaviour, e.g. EA is wrong and here’s why
would welcome any suggestions readers have