Thank you so much for this comment! I really appreciate your appreciation.
I like your point about the topics I chose being famous. If I were to re-write this article, I might center it more around "the x-risk of our institutions being drastically wrong or intellectually dishonest." I suspect there's too much trust among EAs in the conclusions of the institutions that tell us "there's not much proof" of UFOs or spiritual reality. These conclusions are simply not true, according to the experts in the (exiled and disrespected) academic fields devoted to them.
Consider "The x-risk of exiling Galileo."
The question isn't only "is there proof" — it's also "if there's proof, would they tell you"?
EAs seem to think "yes, 100%, end of story." I think no — or at least that the "no" option is an x-risk worth investigating and mitigating.
For example: How would we falsify the hypothesis that "scientific institutions are intellectually honest"?
If they were NOT honest, you might find: - Reputation-based culture (as though social status had anything to do with epistemic status) - Entire fields ostracized on the basis of their conclusions, instead of on the basis of their rigor - Significant numbers of well-credentialed experts speaking out against intellectual bias
As you can tell, I haven't given these falsifiability criteria a ton of thought yet, but these three are all self-evident to demonstrate. See the Manifesto for Post-Materialist Science link in the "Spiritual reality" point above.
Cheers again my friend, your comment made my day. :)
Thank you so much for this comment! I really appreciate your appreciation.
I like your point about the topics I chose being famous. If I were to re-write this article, I might center it more around "the x-risk of our institutions being drastically wrong or intellectually dishonest." I suspect there's too much trust among EAs in the conclusions of the institutions that tell us "there's not much proof" of UFOs or spiritual reality. These conclusions are simply not true, according to the experts in the (exiled and disrespected) academic fields devoted to them.
Consider "The x-risk of exiling Galileo."
The question isn't only "is there proof" — it's also "if there's proof, would they tell you"?
EAs seem to think "yes, 100%, end of story." I think no — or at least that the "no" option is an x-risk worth investigating and mitigating.
For example: How would we falsify the hypothesis that "scientific institutions are intellectually honest"?
If they were NOT honest, you might find:
- Reputation-based culture (as though social status had anything to do with epistemic status)
- Entire fields ostracized on the basis of their conclusions, instead of on the basis of their rigor
- Significant numbers of well-credentialed experts speaking out against intellectual bias
As you can tell, I haven't given these falsifiability criteria a ton of thought yet, but these three are all self-evident to demonstrate. See the Manifesto for Post-Materialist Science link in the "Spiritual reality" point above.
Cheers again my friend, your comment made my day. :)