The traditional neoreactionary counter is that increased quality of life is due to technological advancement, and that social "progress" has been neutral at best and detrimental at worst.

I feel sorry for the feminist women in cryonics who don't see this as a distinct possibility of the kind of Future World which would revive them. They might find themselves in a conservative, patriarchal society which won't have much tolerance for their assumptions about women's freedoms.

I haven't really seen much discussion on the intersection of neoreaction and transhumanism. Neoreactionary theories of long-range probable societal trends, like dysgenics or a return to generally pre-Enlightenment social order also tend to assume that humans stay mostly as they are and only get selected by natural evolution. Meanwhile, getting to the point of being able to revive cryonically stored people successfully would probably include a bunch of human condition gamechanger technologies, like an ability to make the whole notion of fixed gender optional on any level (genetics, cognitive architecture, body plan) you'd care to name.

For that reason, I'm a little worried that it will receive disproportionate attention.

Worried? This is the only place I've even heard of it. This place gives the very false impression that it's something that matters to people out in the real world.

Edit: the only exposure elsewhere ive had is when a friend who is a conisseur of bizarre stories about silicon valley shenanigans he can laugh at linked me to some article called 'geeks for monarchy'. He was 100% sure the writer had been trolled and found it hilarious.

Are "nerd-focused extremist movements" a thing? I can't think of any other examples.

"Work better" in what sense? Nassim Nicholas Taleb argues that the longevity and "anti-fragile" nature of practices like religion and patriarchy indicate that they work quite well indeed, despite recent efforts to make them go away.

"Lesswrong is that place that sounds very similar to Neoreaction minus the explicit politics".

That's only an observation that could be made by someone who knows what neoreaction sounds like. On the other hand by having LW posts about neoreactionary ideas anybody reading LW comes into contact with them.

Your arguments against doing science in this case seem fully general to me. They could be used by anyone promoting their brand of alternative medicine no matter how bizarre their claims would be.

What are your suggestions for how to most reliably evaluate anecdotal data? Would it be possible to do some sort of meta-science on this topic? How would you evaluate placebo effects? (Note that I think utilizing placebo too is important.)

I understand many medical treatments aren't RCT based either but the fact that many are kind of makes me trust the mindset of health care professionals more.

Am I delusional or am I correct in thinking chiropractors are practitioners of something a little above blood letting and way below actual modern medicine?

The latest Cochrane review indicates that chiropractors do as well as conventional treatment for lower back pain.

It's a bit odd as the first choice of treatment but trying a bunch of different treatments till one solves an issue like this is useful.

Modern opposition to chiropractics is based on the foundation that chiropractors diagnose patients based on what they feel when they touch the patients and not based on X-ray. It's quite easy to do objective science based on X-rays. The moment where you diagnose based on subjective perception it becomes harder to do science.

Guesses about what Palmer, the founder of chiropractics thought he was doing turned out to be wrong and it took the chiropractic association till 1996 to update their definition of subluxation.

Big pharma also has a business model where they can outspend chiropractors by a huge margin when it comes to lobbying and PR to establish memes in society.

The fact that some chiropractors claim to be able to treat every disease while they probably can't also doesn't help.

I'd like to see a Wikipedia article from the 24th Century about the Enlightenment which reverses the usual judgments now about the heroes versus the villains in the culture war of the 18th Century.

The health store phenomenon you observe (weird alliances) is called "crank magnetism". People who believe one weird thing tend to believe other weird things. (This particularly applies to conspiracy theorists.) Alternative medicine advocates are highly supportive of other alternative therapies that directly contradict their own, because they're of a subculture that defines itself oppositionally. The money flows in to support this weird alliance.

LW's interests do indeed not necessarily hang together, except being things advanced by the transhumanist subculture. Friendly AI doesn't go naturally with cryonics or nanotechnology as interests, for example (even if those things might plausibly have synergies).

I submit that promoting LW as material for crank magnets may not work well and will just end up infuriating those capable of joined-up thinking.