Bishop Hill has spotted the remarkable similarity between the takedown of a high flying academic in the field of psychology and that of Steve McIntyre and the Hockey Stick debunking.
The only difference being one is a hero to the Guardian, the other a miserable oddball trouble maker…..the BBC’s dreaded ‘Blogger’…..
The British amateur who debunked the mathematics of happiness
Unfortunately, while his grasp of maths was strong enough to see the problem, it wasn’t sufficiently firm to be able to mount an academic takedown of Fredrickson’s and Losada’s work…..he decided to seek the help of an academic mathematician. Not just any academic mathematician either, but one who had made a name for himself by puncturing the bogus use of maths and science in another discipline…. Alan Sokal.
[Note this next bit…..scientists careers and bank balances depending on a good write up…slaps on the back from fellow scientists, ‘peer review’, no doubt reciprocated….and of course this would entail closing down criticism as well perhaps]
Sokal did a little research and was amazed at the standing the Fredrickson and Losada paper enjoyed. “I don’t know what the figures are in psychology but I know that in physics having 350 citations is a big deal,” he says. “Look on Google you get something like 27,000 hits. This theory is not just big in academia, there’s a whole industry of coaching and it intersects with business and business schools. There’s a lot of money in it.”
The paper mounted a devastating case against the maths employed by Fredrickson and Losada, who were offered the chance to respond in the same online issue of American Psychologist. Losada declined and has thus far failed to defend his input in any public forum. But Fredrickson did write a reply, which, putting a positive spin on things, she titled Updated Thinking on Positivity Ratios.
[Here they note the ‘wishful thinking’….a scientist will find what he is looking for…by happily ignoring inconvenient other ‘things’ that contradict his exciting new theory]
What you do in science is you make a statement of what you think will happen and then run the experiment and see if it matches it. What you don’t do is pick up a bunch of data and start reading tea leaves. Because you can always find something. If you don’t have much data you shouldn’t go round theorising. Something orange is going to happen to you today, says the astrology chart. Sure enough, you’ll notice if an orange bicycle goes by you.”
I imagine the exact same thing goes on in climate science…the CRU emails proving that inconvenient science was blocked from publications…..and not just climate science…
In 2008 Physicist Lee Smolin’s book ‘The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science and What Comes Next’ was published.
What he had to say about the way science worked and how ideas and theories were produced and then supported regardless of reality was a stinging rebuke to those people who jump on a bandwagon and base their career and funding on the ‘truth’ of that idea….if the idea is discredited so are they, and the funding dries up…..
Here is what he says about String Theory and its proponents….
‘….with a cry of joy, most of these scientists seized on string theory as the answer. But their enthusiasm was such that they came to think not that it might be the answer, but that it must be. They formed themselves into a cult. Dissenters and apostates were not just scorned, they were denied posts in universities. Einstein the thinker could not now get a job in any leading physics department. For any young physicist, it was easiest simply to suppress one‘s doubts and go with the stringies.’
Sounds familiar.
The British amateur who debunked the mathematics of happiness
The astonishing story of Nick Brown, the British man who began a part-time psychology course in his 50s – and ended up taking on America’s academic establishment
The Complex Dynamics of Wishful Thinking.
Unfortunately, while his grasp of maths was strong enough to see the problem, it wasn’t sufficiently firm to be able to mount an academic takedown of Fredrickson’s and Losada’s work…..he decided to seek the help of an academic mathematician. Not just any academic mathematician either, but one who had made a name for himself by puncturing the bogus use of maths and science in another discipline…. Alan Sokal.
Sokal did a little research and was amazed at the standing the Fredrickson and Losada paper enjoyed. “I don’t know what the figures are in psychology but I know that in physics having 350 citations is a big deal,” he says. “Look on Google you get something like 27,000 hits. This theory is not just big in academia, there’s a whole industry of coaching and it intersects with business and business schools. There’s a lot of money in it.”
The paper mounted a devastating case against the maths employed by Fredrickson and Losada, who were offered the chance to respond in the same online issue of American Psychologist. Losada declined and has thus far failed to defend his input in any public forum. But Fredrickson did write a reply, which, putting a positive spin on things, she titled Updated Thinking on Positivity Ratios.
What you do in science is you make a statement of what you think will happen and then run the experiment and see if it matches it. What you don’t do is pick up a bunch of data and start reading tea leaves. Because you can always find something. If you don’t have much data you shouldn’t go round theorising. Something orange is going to happen to you today, says the astrology chart. Sure enough, you’ll notice if an orange bicycle goes by you.”
Any second now, Albaman will be on to accuse you of repeating yourself, Alan. 🙂
Actually, in an ironic twist, he’s more likely to cut & paste one he wrote earlier.
Those naughty, deceptive NOAA people…
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/just-hit-the-noaa-motherlode
Science is so complicated these days you need to be a genius to understand it. Which reminds me of the early Church which wrapped itself in Latin, a language no one but the Church and occasionally the establishment spoke.
But then when I read around a subject I find it’s not that hard after all. Take ‘dark matter’. It’s this substance that must exist otherwise all the sums are wrong. Easy.
I know I’m right because the other day I saw a naked man walking down the street and thought ‘what a splendid set of clothes that emperor is wearing.’
“Science is so complicated these days you need to be a genius to understand it”
As a Mensa member, I disagree, that is what a lot of scientists are paid to do, to make things as complicated as possible, such as Climate scientists with waffle and bullshit about feedback and black body temperatures, etc.
But just like people like Johnny Ball and David Bellamy, I get most satisfaction in science by showing how simple it is to understand the basics of science.
Also, coincidentally, there was an article in the Space special interest group of Mensa about an alternative theory to the dogmatic assumptions about dark matter, using twisted bands of gravity probably caused by the relativistic effects of a rotating Black hole at the core of the Galaxy.
I didn’t know you were a Mensa member Richard.
I did, but I’d forgotten, which is why I’m not in Mensa.
My Tourette’s nearly had me post a joke about Mencap, but my recently-installed PC mind filter snagged it just in time.
Indeed, and I would go further and suggest that the actual essence of the difference between what makes something scientific, and what makes is non-scientific, is ridiculously simple. Which presumably is why climate scientists try to hide it in layer after layer of pseudo-scientific fraud.
Simply put, the scientific method. Hypothesis => prediction => experimentation => results => conclusion.
Feynman said it beautifully, “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”
The CAGW hypothesis is demonstrated by Climate Models. The Climate Models project what the hypothesis predicts. Climate models are NOT experimentation. The only way to validate the models (and hypothesis from which they were created) is to observe and empirically measure reality, then compare the empirically measured reality against the predictions of the CAGW based models.
The scientific method dictates that if the prediction of the models and empirically measured reality match, then the CAGW hypothesis remains a valid hypothesis.
Empirically measured reality does not match the outcomes predicted by the models. The models predicted much more warming than has actually occured. There is no way around that fact. There is a statistically significant divergence between what the models predicted and what we have observed, therefore the models are wrong, which means that the hypothesis upon which they were coded is also wrong and is scientifically falsified.
That is simple science according to the correct application of the scientific method.
I don’t like dark matter – it seems so much like the luminiferous ether that has to exist or all the sums are wrong.
It depends on the science. Some disciplines or matters of interest are very complex. They are complex not because the principles are hard to understand but because there are far too many variables involved, and interlinked. It is the complexity of connections that make the discipline difficult.
Under these circumstances, one is left no other option but to take lots of data, and use it to predict future events, or try to set up a model. Both are used in the “science” of Climate “science”.
I would not regard any of the biological sciences proper sciences. Most certainly, Climate science is not a science.
Further, when huge amounts of money are involved – tax and tax payer subsidy – corruption and politics will corrupt even the most pure science. Thus Climate science is now riddled by lies and corruption.
Climate science should be shunned by everyone with any sense, as it giving good science, such the Applied
Physics and Engineering, a bad name.
Steve McIntyre – one of the main witnesses for the prosecution in Climategate, but never called (along with all the others).
In Melanie Phillips brilliant expose of the death of the West (The World Turned Upside Down), she puts together the
a) bogus “science” of global warming
b) the rush from reason into New Age claptrap-which is the same woodland fairy crap as global warming.
c) endemic hatred of Christianity, Israel, the USA(not Obamas version though!) that allows the above crap to flourish in the absence of any reason.
d) free pass ALWAYS to Islam and the Socialism as the loathers of Christianity, Judaism, Israel and the American idyll….and as Soviet agents and advocates of old( Nasser, Chomsky etc)…the BBC will always defend these Aquarian Totalitarians…fascists, but ever-so-virtuous..think of Stalin as an aromatherapist.
A comment by Persnickety19 Wrote: Jan 04, 2014 9:49 PM
I still think the best way to reduce carbon dioxide – the original hypothesis of the cause of global warming – is to have everyone (excluding babies and old geezers) just hold their breath at a given time on a specified day, for 30 seconds. Call it Worldwide Hold Your Breath Event, or W.H.Y.BreathE.
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2014/01/03/time-to-call-climate-change-for-what-it-is-the-weather-n1771214/page/2
When there is easy money to be made by robbing
the ordinary taxpayer, merchant banks will not be far behind. Then there are the power utilities. They have been assigned to collect the booty via our energy bills. Guess what? They dont itemise the bill by stating how much of the bill is made up of Greeny taxes. Oh no they dont- for they will charge the government (us again), for doing the dirty, and then add 10% say for administration. Its a nice earner, chiselled out from a captive population.
That is the compact between the government and your energy supplier – they wont itemise, and the government will let them get a slice of the action. Scam is not the word – its corruption and conspiracy.
We must not forget the EU, which intends to grab a slice of
this windfall. Then there is the UN, which will also get a slice of the
bonanza. Its way too good a scam to be lightly thrown away. One would expect the BBC (again funded by us), to be a voice of the people, to raise the issue. Forget it, they get their subsidy from the government, and will not rock the boat.
The thieves are in government. They control the police, and
if you dont pay, then one can expect a police squad.