I feel your sincerity but I don't know why you're sure of that. I think it is pretty easy to construct situations where one course of action is better than anot

I feel your sincerity but I don't know why you're sure of that. I think it is pretty easy to construct situations where one course of action is better than another. For example helping more innocent people vs hardened people with no remorse. Or within the same groups, focusing more on disease eradication against targets which are more harmful vs those diseases which are only small inconveniences. I think EAs might just be trying to apply that same style reasoning to areas which aren't commonly viewed as clear yet. Ie say hey, you may not be familiar with it, but there is some information suggesting that between these two conventional charities, here is an analysis with assumptions laid out that suggests that contributuons may not actually be equivalent! You can still take it or leave it. I don't think they're saying they know everything perfectly. Just that they think it's important to push into the murky areas. I think the issue with blanket statements is on the listener. If I have an idea and somewhat boldly say hey all, I think my idea is better than anything before - and here's why, the "get mad and attack" response, even when sincere and correct, masks so many nonsincere responses. That is, lots of people who claim to be serious analysts frequently use the "attack" response, or the "I'm so tired of this" response. Sometimes that is justified but it's also a crutch and tends to harden battle lines. Personally I'd just figure out if I agree with them (and I don't) and why, and move on. I appreciate you not piling on to them, too.