While CA readers may disagree with Tom Curtis, we’ve also noticed that he is straightforward. Recently, in comments responding to my recent post on misrepresentations by Lewandowsky and Cook, Curtis agreed that “Lewandowsky’s new addition to his paper is silly beyond belief”, but argued that “the FOI data does not show Cook to have lied […]
Last fall, Geoff Chambers and Barry Woods established beyond a shadow of a doubt that no blog post linking to the Lewandowsky survey had ever been published at the Skeptical Science (SKS) blog. Chambers reasonably suggested at the time that the authors correct the claim in the article to reflect the lack of any link […]
Ethics bait-and-switcher Stephan Lewandowsky and his sidekick, Klaus Oberauer, have added hide the decline to their repertoire at the University of Western Australia blog. As CA readers are well aware, the Briffa et al 2001 reconstruction, based on 387 tree ring density chronologies, goes down in the latter part of the 20th century – clearly […]
Lewandowsky had to obtain approval for his survey from the UWA Ethics Committee. Simon Turnill has just received remarkable information on this process through FOI, described in an excellent post here. Documents here. The information showed that Lewandowsky used bait-and-switch. Lewandowsky had obtained approval for a project entitled “Understanding Statistical Trends”. The original proposal had […]
Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel laureate, recently wrote a scathing letter about experiments by social psychologists purporting to link social priming to associative memory (h/t reader Fred S). Kahneman described a “storm of doubts” about social priming results, inability to replicate claims and characterized the field as a “train wreck looming” and a “mess”. Kahneman’s letter […]
As CA readers are aware, the Lewandowsky survey was conducted at stridently anti-skeptic blogs (Deltoid, Tamino etc.) and numerous responses purporting to be from “skeptics” were actually from anti-skeptics fraudulently pretending to be skeptics. To date, most of the focus has been on the fake responses in which respondents, pretending to be “skeptics”, deceptively pretended […]
As CA readers are aware, Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Western Australia recently published an article relying on fraudulent responses at stridently anti-skeptic blogs to yield fake results. In addition, it turns out that Lewandowsky misrepresented explained variances from principal components as explained variances from factor analysis, a very minor peccadillo in comparison. In […]
Lewandowsky’s most recent blog post really makes one wonder about the qualifications at the University of West Anglia Western Australia. Lewandowsky commenced his post as follows: The science of statistics is all about differentiating signal from noise. This exercise is far from trivial: Although there is enough computing power in today’s laptops to churn out […]
Is Lewandowsky et al 2012 (in press) replicable? Not easily and not so far. Both Roman M and I have been working on it without success so far. Here’s a progress report (on the first part only).
Lewandowsky et al stated that “links were posted on 8 blogs (with a pro-science science stance but with a diverse audience”. Lewandowsky identified the eight blogs (in an email to Barry Woods) as: Skeptical Science, Tamino, Bickmore, the UU-UNO Clmate Change Task Force (trunity), Ill Considered, Mandia, Deltoid and Hot Topic. The relevant posts at […]
