flâneur

Contra Contra Contra Caplan On Psych | Slate Star Codex

slatestarcodex.com · 82,599 words · saved by 1 readers

In 2006, Bryan Caplan wrote a critique of psychiatry. In 2015, I responded. Now it’s 2020, and Bryan has a counterargument. I’m going to break the cycle of delay and respond now, and maybe we’ll finish this argument before we’re both too old and demented to operate computers. Bryan writes: 1. With a few exceptions, Scott fairly and accurately explains my original (and current) position. 2. Scott correctly identifies several gray areas in my position, but by my count I explicitly acknowledged all of them in my original article. 3. Scott then uses those gray areas to reject my whole position in favor of the conventional view. 4. The range of the gray areas isn’t actually that big, so he should have accepted most of my heterodoxies. 5. If the gray areas were as big as Scott says, he should reject the conventional view too and just be agnostic. I think the gray areas are overwhelming and provide proof that Bryan’s strict dichotomies don’t match the real world. I also think, as a general ph

Contra Contra Contra Caplan On Psych | Slate Star Codex Home About / Top Posts Archives Top Posts Comments Feed RSS Feed Slate Star Codex Blogroll Economics Artir Kel Bryan Caplan David Friedman Pseudoerasmus Scott Sumner Tyler Cowen Effective Altruism 80000 Hours Blog Effective Altruism Forum GiveWell Blog Rationality Alyssa Vance Beeminder Elizabeth Van Nostrand Gwern Branwen Jacob Falkovich Jeff Kaufman Katja Grace Kelsey Piper Less Wrong Paul Christiano Robin Hanson Sarah Constantin Zack Davis Zvi Mowshowitz Science Andrew Gelman Greg Cochran Michael Caton Razib Khan Scott Aaronson Stephan

related reading