A few things:
** I'm confused. On the one hand, you say knowing the popularity of various positions is important to you in deciding your own beliefs about something potentially dangerous to you and others. On the other hand, you say it's not worth seeking more information about and was just a throwaway line in an argument. I am having a hard time reconciling those two claims... you seem to be trying to have it both ways. I suspect I've misunderstood something important.
** I didn't think you were arguing for censorship. Or against it. Actually, I have long since lost track of what most participants in this thread are arguing for, and in some cases I'm not sure they themselves know.
** I agree with you that the existence of knowledgeable people who think something is dangerous is evidence that it's dangerous.
** Since it seems to matter: for my own part, I rate the expected dangerousness of "the basilisk" very low, and the social cost to the group of the dispute over "censoring" it significantly higher but still low.
** I cannot see why that should be of any evidentiary value whatsoever, to you or anyone else. Whether I'm right or wrong, my position is a pretty easy-to-reach one; it's the one you arrive at in the absence of other salient beliefs (like, for example, the belief that EY/SIAI is a highly reliable estimator of potential harm done by "basilisks" in general, or the belief that the specific argument for the harmfulness of this basilisk is compelling). And most newcomers will lack those other beliefs. So I expect that quite a few people share my position -- far more than 50% -- but I can't see why you ought to find that fact compelling. That a belief is very widely shared among many many people like me who don't know much about the topic isn't much evidence for anything.
I suspect I've misunderstood something important.
I suspect I've obfuscated it, actually. The popularity of various positions is not intrinsically important to me - in fact, I give professions of believe about as little credit as I can get away with. This specific case is such that every form of evidence I find stronger (reasoning through the argument logically for flaws; statistical evidence about its danger) is not available. With a dearth of stronger evidence, I have to rely on weak evidence - but "the evidence is weak" is not an argument fo...
Ideally, I'd like to save the world. One way to do that involves contributing academic research, which raises the question of what's the most effective way of doing that.
The traditional wisdom says if you want to do research, you should get a job in a university. But for the most part the system seems to be set up so that you first spend a long time working for someone else and research their ideas, after which you can lead your own group, but then most of your time will be spent on applying for grants and other administrative trivia rather than actually researching the interesting stuff. Also, in Finland at least, all professors need to also spend time doing teaching, so that's another time sink.
I suspect I would have more time to actually dedicate on research, and I could get doing it quicker, if I took a part-time job and did the research in my spare time. E.g. the recommended rates for a freelance journalist in Finland would allow me to spend a week each month doing work and three weeks doing research, of course assuming that I can pull off the freelance journalism part.
What (dis)advantages does this have compared to the traditional model?
Some advantages:
Some disadvantages:
EDIT: Note that while I certainly do appreciate comments specific to my situation, I posted this over at LW and not Discussion because I was hoping the discussion would also be useful for others who might be considering an academic path. So feel free to also provide commentary that's US-specific, say.