Travis Driessen
73 posts






















Prominent academic brings forward (a) studies and charts showing one thing is causing a second, bad thing, and (b) corresponding urgent policy reforms. The 5 big questions to ask: 1. Your field is crippled by a vicious replication crisis; 50%+ and maybe even 70% of your field's studies don't give the same results when run by someone else. Why believe any of your analyses? 2. Why should we believe "wet streets cause rain" vs "rain causes wet streets"? A big part of the scientific replication crisis is mispresentation of cause vs effect. Why should we believe the flow of causation is as you say? 3. Few important things in the world are monocausal, most outcomes are overdetermined by several or many causes. Why should we believe that this is the single or main cause that is generating the effect, and not one or dozens of other causes, or no causes at all? 4. Many prominent scientists just like you have come forward over the last 100 years with similar arguments; we look back on many of those as irrational moral panics, people freaking out over comic books and dime novels and bicycles and jazz music. Is this just another in a long series of academic- and activist-driven moral panics? 5. Thomas Sowell says, "There are no solutions, only tradeoffs." What are the tradeoffs of your proposed policy reforms? What are the downsides to be suffered by people you've never met and feel no responsibility to? Are you personally exposed to those downsides, or are you totally off the hook?









