Review Voting Thread

I'm specifically interested in a review of this post by someone who found these scenarios novel.

This is an excellent review. One thing I thought it could do better is in the vein of epistemic spot checks, pointing out places where the authors conjectures are far ahead of the science For instance, AFAICT, memory reconsolidation has only been proven for up to a few weeks in Mice models, but they talk about it being used to reconsolidate childhood memories in the book.

I think there's a lot of value in this post articulating a certain frame. Don't know how this works since it's a link post, but would love to see a review that more explicitly pointed at the frame, how it's useful and not useful, and pointed out the ways the author could make the frame more explicit.

I made a comment when that post first came out that I thought this was missing the mark on what contextualizing is actually trying to get at (in particular, focusing on language meanings rather than the consequences of language use).  I think this whole sequence by Zach is at it's best when it focuses on the upsides of decoupling, and at it's worst when it tries to explain contextualizing, and would like to see a review that covers both those strengths and weaknesses.

I would love to see someone review this post!  In particular, there was a critique about "falsifiability" - would love to hear the exact problems with what's unfalsifiable, and address them in a subsequent edit.  

I'm surprised by the presence of negative scores on some posts. Is this to be interpreted as "please do not review this post" or as "please get to the others first"?

All three seem to be good explanatory pieces in and of themselves; I wonder if there is a kind of performance penalty where if a post does not seem like it would benefit much from a review process, it gets pushed to the back of the line. This isn't bad really, in fact it seems fairly efficient, I just didn't expect it.

Specifically interested in reviews covering related work, replication, follow-up, etc.

I (weakly) think this one is probably more important than the progress studies post on concrete. 

I made some critiques of this sequence when it first came out, related to the implicit framing that specificity is always good, and generalist is always sloppy ( this a frame, I don't think it's stated explicitly). Similar to my comment about Zach's sequence, I think this sequence is at its best when talking about the benefits of specificity, and at its worst when talking about the problems with non-specificity.

I'd like to see a review that highlights these merits while pointing out the missed perspectives. Bonus points if it relates to the some of the notions about withholding specificity discussed in alkjashs post on Babble, which was included in last year's review.