My main problem with Scott Alexander is this: To draw correct conclusions from data, a necessary (though insufficient) condition is to be an expert in the field from which the data is drawn and/or to which the data applies. Otherwise, you might not know how accurate the sources of the data are and, more importantly, whether you're considering enough context (i.e. whether you have all the right data to draw your conclusion). At the very best, you can consider the objections you've heard, but are these (all) the right objections? For example, when I read Paul Krugman on international trade or central banks, at least I know that he's an expert in that subject matter so he knows what context may be more or less relevant. When he's not an expert in some subfield of economics, at least he knows who the experts are and refers to them.

Scott Alexander is not an expert in almost anything he writes about. As far as I know, he's not done any scholarly work outside his area of practice, psychiatry. In relation to this post's subject, Alexander is not an expert in criminology, law enforcement, political perception, or sociology. Then again, neither is the author of this post (at least they don't say what their relevant credentials are). It seems neither of them even know who the experts are. I can understand why they find the question interesting, but they're ill-equipped to provide answers. Both personal perception and data can obviously be misleading, which is precisely why people who truly want to understand something spend years becoming experts.

It seems to me that both Alexander and the author of this post are, actually, members of the same church whose members are those who believe that people can draw correct conclusions from a smattering of data without the necessary scholarship and expertise, and that you can understand something complicated without putting in all the effort required to understand it: the Church of Dunning–Kruger Dilettantism.

Of course, anyone is free to write their thoughts on anything, and readers are free to form opinions on what they read. What this reader sees here is two people arguing over something that both know far too little about to offer the relevant insight. What is interesting to me is that someone who's not particularly knowledgeable on the subject of crime took the time to write a long rebuttal to another post about crime written by someone else who knows just as little. I can guess that's because that church is large.

> It seems to me that both Alexander and the author of this post are, actually, members of the same church - the church of those who believe that people can draw correct conclusions from a smattering of data without the necessary scholarship and expertise, and that you can understand something complicated without putting in all the effort required to understand it. It's the Church of Dunning–Kruger Dilettantism.

We are all like that, we have no other options, haven't we? I mean, either we try to understand the world around us, or we are not. We can't be experts in everything, so in most cases we are go by Danning-Kruger Dilettantism.

Scott made the dilettantism into a profession, he has its methods and he sharpens them. He debates things with other dilettantes, and it helps them to improve themselves. To me, personally, it is one of the main attractions of the blog. I'm dilettante in a lot of topics, but still I don't want to simply ignore them, because I'm not an expert.

> What is interesting to me is that someone who's not particularly knowledgeable on the subject of crime took the time to write a long rebuttal to another post about crime written by someone else who knows just as little.

It is not about crime really. The author we discussing talks about methodology, they are on a meta level of a discussion, the crime discussion is just one data point for a meta-discussion.

Your post is the part of the same meta-discussion about methodology, though your attack comes from the other direction.

Ah. You refer to Rationalism.

Thank you for this, I was struggling to put my finger on it.