{"id":24308,"date":"2014-04-14T09:15:23","date_gmt":"2014-04-14T15:15:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/?p=24308"},"modified":"2014-04-14T11:21:59","modified_gmt":"2014-04-14T17:21:59","slug":"oh-heavens-analysis-of-a-first-example","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/2014\/oh-heavens-analysis-of-a-first-example\/","title":{"rendered":"Oh Heavens…. (Analysis of a ‘first example’)"},"content":{"rendered":"

At retraction watch, I posted a comment which began ‘Klass, All I can say is \u00e2\u20ac\u0153oh heavens\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.’ Perhaps a more appropriate intro would have been “La storia mia \u00c3\u00a8 breve…..” If you like, you can read my original comment there<\/a>. Here I will self-plagiarize and repost — possibly cleaning up a few typos:<\/p>\n

—<\/center>
\nKlass,
\nAll I can say is \u00e2\u20ac\u0153oh heavens\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.<\/p>\n

I agree the paper might seem like a good read if you skim. But I think that opinion could only be held by someone who doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t visit the underlying links to examine the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcevidence\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 for the claims.<\/p>\n

\"Table3_Fury_Lewandowsky\"<\/a>One difficulty is even straightforward requests for information are diagnosed as somehow suggesting \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcconspiracy ideation\u00e2\u20ac\u2122. To use an example: According to the paper, the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcfirst\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 person to have ideated the conspiracy theory \u00e2\u20ac\u02dc \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Skeptic\u00e2\u20ac\u009d blogs contacted after delay<\/em>\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 is Geoff Chambers. (Given the nick-name for the theory, it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s worth mentioning that skeptic blogs were contacted after a delay. So presumably the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcconspiracy ideation\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 is not evidence by merely knowing that fact is true.) Let\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s look at how Geoffs comment were taken [as] evidence of some sort of conspiracy ideation. To do the explanation justice, I must give some background information:<\/p>\n

On 9\/2\/2012 Lewandowsky posted a discussion about contacting skeptic blogs at his own blog: http:\/\/www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org\/ccc2.html<\/a><\/p>\n

I would characterize his post an \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcsnarky\u00e2\u20ac\u2122; others might think otherwise. But in the third paragraph Lewandowsky wrote,<\/p>\n

Should any others want to continue searching their correspondence, it might be helpful to know that my assistant has just re-read old correspondence from some time ago (e.g., from Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:38:33 -0400) with considerable amusement in light of the frivolous accusations flying about the internet that we may not have contacted those blogs with a request to post a link.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Geoff read what Lewandowsky wrote. As he was curious about the dates when invitations were sent and asked a question which you will find in the 3rd comment on that post. It is rather brief and reads:<\/p>\n

3. geoffchambers at 21:08 PM on 4 September, 2012
\n Professor Lewandowsky
\n Does your thrd paragraph mean that you posted requests to the five sceptic blogs on 23rd September 2010? <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I would think a person who was not blinded by their own pre-conceived notions about what this question meant would think geoff was asking for clarification of information in paragraph 3.<\/p>\n

The next two comments are by \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Lewandowsky supporters\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Eli Rabbet and Mike H.<\/p>\n

4. Eli Rabett at 21:41 PM on 4 September, 2012
\n Watch the Gish Gallop. FWIW, as Eli wrote at the other post, a great argument for the Apple OS search function.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For those who do not know \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. \u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

The next comment is interesting because\u00e2\u20ac\u201c if I interpret the tone correctly\u00e2\u20ac\u201c it is challenging and includes an example of someone hurling the accusation that the geoff\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s one-sentence question somehow amounts to a conspiracy theory:<\/p>\n

\n 5. MikeH at 21:41 PM on 4 September, 2012
\n geoffchambers @ 3. This is your post at Skeptical Science at 19:01 PM on 4 September, 2012<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153McIntyre says he received the request from Lewandowsky\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s assistant 6th September, (a week after the survey had been posted at Tamino, Deltoid etc) and a follow up request two weeks later. That brings us to 20th September. 23rd of September Lewandowsky gave a presentation at Monash University in which he announced the results of the survey, with the current sample size of 1100 (i.e. after the elimination of false data and duplicated IPs). So three days after asking for cooperation in fieldwork, he\u00e2\u20ac\u2122d processed the results and written his conclusions and announced them.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

So you already knew that McIntyre received the email on the 6th September.
\n
\n What us \u00e2\u20ac\u201c conspiracy theorists \u00e2\u20ac\u201c never!<\/em><\/p>\n

I thought this was over once McIntyre had admitted that he had overlooked the email invitation. I forgot \u00e2\u20ac\u201c conspiracy theories 101 \u00e2\u20ac\u201c they do not have to make sense.<\/p>\n

This is hilarious. I am getting the popcorn. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

(Italics mine.)<\/p>\n

Responding to Eli (#4), MikeH (#5) comments (which I interpret as challenging), Geoff posts the 6th comment in the thread<\/p>\n

\n geoffchambers at 22:23 PM on 4 September, 2012
\n No Gish gallop, no conspiracy, just a simple question.<\/em> Would Professor Lewandowsky kindly tell us when he sent his requests to sceptic sites to publicise his survey? In the case of face to face interviews or telephone surveys, it is normal practice to state the dates of fieldwork. Professor Lewandowsky posted his requests to at least six of his eight pro-science sites in late August, since they posted his request 28-30 August. McIntyre received his request 6th September, with a follow-up reminder 2 weeks later. Lewandowsky sent something to someone the 23rd September \u00e2\u20ac\u201c but what?
\n Bit by bit we\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re piecing together the facts that should have been in the methodology section of his paper. <\/em>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve italicized the explanatory text that was stripped by Lewandowsky<\/em> when this quote was presented in the SI for Fury. The previous three comments were not included.<\/p>\n

If not stripped out of the full quote, the first sentence in Geoffs (#6) suggests to a reader Geoff is responding to what he perceives as a rather snarky accusation his question is a \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcgish gallop\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. If MikeH comment had been presented to a reader, the main part of the Geoff\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s response appears show geof willing to respond to MikeH\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s demand that he justify one-sentence request for clarification. The \u00e2\u20ac\u02dckindly\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 could be interpreted as Geoff explaining that he was trying to ask a fairly polite question. Notably: Geoff finishes is comment by supplying his motive for asking the question,<\/p>\n

Bit by bit we\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re piecing together the facts that should have been in the methodology section of his paper.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So: we have an explicitly stated motive. Geoff wants to know information to remedy something he considers to be a deficiency of the methodology section.<\/p>\n

I think it is entirely reasonable that people at skeptic blogs would wish to know the identifies of blog contacted both out of pure curiosity, to evaluate the degree of skepticism, and to [evaluate] whether they were larger more popular blogs, smaller less popular blogs, truly out there \u00e2\u20ac\u0153sky dragon\u00e2\u20ac\u009d blogs, lukewarmer blogs or so on. Once we learned that skeptic blogs were invited after data collection was well underway, we wished to know details about when they were contacted. It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s possible people could think these details could affect our interpretation of the data as we might wish to know the range of people who participated. I think all of this.<\/p>\n

Now, it seems to me one can debate whether the differential treatment accorded invited blogs should or should not have been in the methodology section of the paper or whether these details matter. Geoff suggested they should have been in the methodology section. I think they \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcmatter\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 to the outcome. I also tend to think major differences in methodology should be discussed in methodology sections; minor differences could be omitted.<\/p>\n

So it seems odd for researchers in Fury suggest that someone holding the opinion any differences in the method of recruiting activist and skeptic blogs should be included in methodology section and wishing to know what they are is exh[i]biting \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Nihilistic Skepticism\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (NS) , or accusing Lew[a]ndowsky and his coauthors of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Nefarious Intent\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (NI) or believing \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Nothing happens by Accident\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (NoA) or that the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcofficial account must be wrong\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 (MbW). (The final one is particularly odd as there was no \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcofficial\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 explanation for the observed differences in timing of invitations and geoff was actually soliciting one through his questions).<\/p>\n

In fact, we now know there were quite a few of differences:<\/p>\n

1) Lewandowsky invited the skeptic blogs after links were already posted at the other blogs. The invitations went out between 1 and 4 weeks after links were already posted on activist blogs.<\/p>\n

2) Some of the activist blogs knew Lewandowsky was involved in the survey; this information was concealed from others. We know this because Lewandowsky\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s name appeared on some of the activists blogs.<\/p>\n

3) Some activist blogs were recruited through a by-invitiation only forum that is often characterized as an \u00e2\u20ac\u0153activist\u00e2\u20ac\u009d blog. (Planet3.0 run by Michael Tobis.) So, with respect to recruiting activist blogs, the methodology involved some \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcpreconditioning\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 in the sense that some blogs may have participated because they learned more detailed information on that forum, as members learning there tended to trust others in that forum and they learned of the survey from a person who they were familiar with. This precondition did not exist for skeptic blogs. And<\/p>\n

4) The only means by which skeptic blogs received information was through a terse email from someone named Hanich who they had never heard of. The invitation did not mention Lewandowsky.<\/p>\n

One might still debate whether these things should be revealed in methodology. In many cases, we only know these things because collectively they were tracked down, not volunte[e]red. But once again, I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t think a difference of opinion on this point amounts to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153NI\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153NS\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153NoA\u00e2\u20ac\u009d or \u00e2\u20ac\u0153[MbW]\u00e2\u20ac\u009d\u00e2\u20ac\u201c yet, it is this difference of opinion that seems to represent evidence of these traits.<\/p>\n

Notably: although the comment on the Lewandowsky\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s post contains 59 comments, it appears Lewandowsky never answered Geoff\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s question about when he invited various blogs. Yet, despite Lewandowsky\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s habitual refusal to provide information, people [continuing] to ask questions seems to be taken as evidence that their thinking exhibits \u00e2\u20ac\u0153MwB\u00e2\u20ac\u009d \u00e2\u20ac\u201d whose symptoms are to reject the explanations provided.<\/p>\n

That people who do not delve into the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcevidence\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 provided might believe the paper is a good read and supports it[s] claim I can believe. That it is [an] \u00e2\u20ac\u0153excellent piece of work\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is beyond me.<\/p>\n

—<\/center>
\nSo, as “Mimi\/Lucia” might say: That’s my brief story! \ud83d\ude42 \t<\/p>\n

Update<\/b>: 11 am. Relevant details learned a bit latter. Woth respect to recruiting activist bloggers, Lewandowsky was already an active participant at one of the blogs he invited to post a link. SkS July, 2010 post by Lewandowsky.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At retraction watch, I posted a comment which began ‘Klass, All I can say is \u00e2\u20ac\u0153oh heavens\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.’ Perhaps a more appropriate intro would have been “La storia mia \u00c3\u00a8 breve…..” If you like, you can read my original comment there. Here I will self-plagiarize and repost — possibly cleaning up a few typos: — Klass, … Continue reading Oh Heavens…. (Analysis of a ‘first example’)<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[134],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24308","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24308","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24308"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24308\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24308"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24308"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24308"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}