Lewandowsky’s Recursive Corruption of Science

Wattsupwiththat have a guest post by Brandon Shollenberger on “Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook – making things up“. It details how the Recursive Fury paper elements that are fabricated. This is a comment just posted.

The “Recursive fury” paper fails to consider an alternative hypothesis. If psychology expert L came along and said that you should not be listened to about subject A, which you believe strongly about, because:-

(a) Nearly all the “experts” disagree with you.

(b) Some fellow believers allegedly have political beliefs that the person L does not like.

(c) A higher proportion of your fellow believers than L’s group allegedly hold other beliefs that most people view as being “nutty

Then you would be somewhat upset – a normal, human, reaction. If you later found out that the claims about the experts were not true, the questions were biased and the statistical conclusions were contradicted by basic statistical analysis, you would be justifiably furious.

Like with people who attribute every extreme weather event to global warming, Lewandowsky bases his case for ignoring sceptical opinions on a distorted opinion of corrupted evidence. When it gets a very predictable response, he interprets this with a distorted opinion of corrupted evidence. The only recursive bit is in the methods Lewandowsky employs in corrupting science.

Leave a comment

3 Comments

  1. simple-touriste

     /  11/06/2014

    At least Lewandowsky acts consistently…
    OMG OMG OMG

    Reply
  2. simple-touriste

     /  11/06/2014

    <>
    The analysis of speech
    By Stephan Lewandowsky
    Professor, School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol
    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rfSpeech.html

    <>
    Beer Bad
    By Tracey Forbes

    Reply
  3. simple-touriste

     /  11/06/2014

    This is the difference between saying “Joe is a racist” and saying “When Joe and Fred get together in a bar at night their discourse contains racist elements based on application of the following scholarly criteria.”

    The analysis of speech
    By Stephan Lewandowsky
    Professor, School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol
    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rfSpeech.html

    See, I think we have a perfect venue here for conducting sociometry here. Bipolar continuum of attraction and rejection. Given your socio-economic statuses, I foresee a…
    (indicates Paula and Xander respectively)
    …”B” rejects “A” diad.

    Beer Bad
    By Tracey Forbes

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: