The way I would put it is that Wenar has, you might say, a pre-existing Bayesian prior, for which he has given detailed arguments elsewhere (namely, in “Poverty is no Pond,” to which he points in his article) that international aid has pervasive and troubling side effects. The time he spent coming to that prior conclusion seems to have b…
The way I would put it is that Wenar has, you might say, a pre-existing Bayesian prior, for which he has given detailed arguments elsewhere (namely, in “Poverty is no Pond,” to which he points in his article) that international aid has pervasive and troubling side effects. The time he spent coming to that prior conclusion seems to have been nontrivial, his conclusion is sincere, and he summarises his arguments in the WIRED article without giving as much detail on them (because the WIRED article doesn’t have space and he has other things he wants to say).
Given that prior, he concludes that the individual instances that GiveWell believes to be too trivial to consider are in fact symptoms of pervasive problems that require deeper study. Because he has already explained to GiveWell why he believes such problems to be likely, he concludes that they ought to know to examine them more closely instead of dismissing them. Hence, vitriol.
I think Wenar’s precise motivations and beliefs matter very deeply, in this case, to understanding what he intends to say and the type of argument he is intending to make. Whether he succeeds in making the kind of argument he intends to make is also a valid question, but at this point I have enough detail to conclude that failures in that department are probably more likely due to the difficulty of the task rather than to negligence.
This isn’t quibbling, in my worldview. It’s essential argumentative charity, without which communication across substantial differences becomes much harder.
Reading the WIRED article, I was also wondering: "Isn`t this exactly what GiveWell does, to also consider the side effects of the actions of their recommended charities?" Maybe the solution to your debate comes down to the 27.7%. One of the sides must have blundered here as the difference between this number and "insubstantial" is quite considerable.
Either way, I DO find it great that also their critics get a voice on the GiveWell website and we should take criticism seriously even if we believe it is unsubstantiated.
The way I would put it is that Wenar has, you might say, a pre-existing Bayesian prior, for which he has given detailed arguments elsewhere (namely, in “Poverty is no Pond,” to which he points in his article) that international aid has pervasive and troubling side effects. The time he spent coming to that prior conclusion seems to have been nontrivial, his conclusion is sincere, and he summarises his arguments in the WIRED article without giving as much detail on them (because the WIRED article doesn’t have space and he has other things he wants to say).
Given that prior, he concludes that the individual instances that GiveWell believes to be too trivial to consider are in fact symptoms of pervasive problems that require deeper study. Because he has already explained to GiveWell why he believes such problems to be likely, he concludes that they ought to know to examine them more closely instead of dismissing them. Hence, vitriol.
I think Wenar’s precise motivations and beliefs matter very deeply, in this case, to understanding what he intends to say and the type of argument he is intending to make. Whether he succeeds in making the kind of argument he intends to make is also a valid question, but at this point I have enough detail to conclude that failures in that department are probably more likely due to the difficulty of the task rather than to negligence.
This isn’t quibbling, in my worldview. It’s essential argumentative charity, without which communication across substantial differences becomes much harder.
Reading the WIRED article, I was also wondering: "Isn`t this exactly what GiveWell does, to also consider the side effects of the actions of their recommended charities?" Maybe the solution to your debate comes down to the 27.7%. One of the sides must have blundered here as the difference between this number and "insubstantial" is quite considerable.
Either way, I DO find it great that also their critics get a voice on the GiveWell website and we should take criticism seriously even if we believe it is unsubstantiated.