One reason is that the studies may consist of filtered evidenceāthat is, evidence selected to demonstrate a particular conclusion, rather than to find the truth. Another reason is that by treating arguments skeptically when they originate in a non-truth-seeking process, one disincentivizes that kind of intellectually dishonest and socially harmful behavior.
The āincentivesā point is reasonable, and itās part of the reason Iād want to deprioritize checking into claims with dishonest origins.
However, Iāll note that establishing a rule like āwe wonāt look at claims seriously if the person making them has a personal vendetta against usā could lead to people trying to argue against examining someoneās claims by arguing that they have a personal vendetta, which gets weird and messy. (āThis person told me they were sad after org X rejected their job application, so Iām not going to take their argument against org Xās work very seriously.ā)
Of course, there are many levels to what a āpersonal vendettaā might entail, and there are real trade-offs to whatever policy you establish. But Iām wary of taking the most extreme approach in any direction (āletās just ignore Phil entirelyā).
As for filtered evidence ā definitely a concern if youāre trying to weigh the totality of evidence for or against something. But not necessarily relevant if thereās one specific piece of evidence that would be damning if true. For example, if Phil had produced a verifiable email exchange showing an EA leader threatening to fire a subordinate for writing something critical of longtermism, it wouldnāt matter much to me how much that leader had done to encourage criticism in public.
I think it is not only naive but epistemically unjustified to insist that this personās findings be assessed on their merits alone.
I agree with this to the extent that those findings allow for degrees of freedom ā so Iāll be very skeptical of conversations reported third-hand or cherry-picked quotes from papers, but still interested in leaked emails that seem like the genuine article.
In addition...
No major disagreements with anything past this point. I certainly wouldnāt put Philās white-supremacy work on a syllabus, though I could imagine excerpts of his criticism on other topics making it in ā of the type āthis point of view implies this objectionā rather than āthis point of view implies that the person holding it is a dangerous lunaticā.
The āincentivesā point is reasonable, and itās part of the reason Iād want to deprioritize checking into claims with dishonest origins.
However, Iāll note that establishing a rule like āwe wonāt look at claims seriously if the person making them has a personal vendetta against usā could lead to people trying to argue against examining someoneās claims by arguing that they have a personal vendetta, which gets weird and messy. (āThis person told me they were sad after org X rejected their job application, so Iām not going to take their argument against org Xās work very seriously.ā)
Of course, there are many levels to what a āpersonal vendettaā might entail, and there are real trade-offs to whatever policy you establish. But Iām wary of taking the most extreme approach in any direction (āletās just ignore Phil entirelyā).
As for filtered evidence ā definitely a concern if youāre trying to weigh the totality of evidence for or against something. But not necessarily relevant if thereās one specific piece of evidence that would be damning if true. For example, if Phil had produced a verifiable email exchange showing an EA leader threatening to fire a subordinate for writing something critical of longtermism, it wouldnāt matter much to me how much that leader had done to encourage criticism in public.
I agree with this to the extent that those findings allow for degrees of freedom ā so Iāll be very skeptical of conversations reported third-hand or cherry-picked quotes from papers, but still interested in leaked emails that seem like the genuine article.
No major disagreements with anything past this point. I certainly wouldnāt put Philās white-supremacy work on a syllabus, though I could imagine excerpts of his criticism on other topics making it in ā of the type āthis point of view implies this objectionā rather than āthis point of view implies that the person holding it is a dangerous lunaticā.