New article in Pacific Standard
Angela Chen’s Pacific Standard piece on the BBS paper hits a neglected point: Big Five openness items track urban taste more than a culture-free trait.
Read Article →Category
ideological bias
17 posts
Heterodox Academy
Heterodox Academy launches against one-ideology academia. Social science needs non-leftists and apolitical scientists so review can catch embedded values.
Read Article →ISPP
Duarte chairs an ISPP session on political bias: Bilewicz on status vs. liberal bias; Duarte on ideological assumptions that quietly wreck study validity.
Read Article →Ideologically-fueled research
Some psychologists pathologize non-leftists to resolve dissonance. System-justification and green “denial” items smuggle values into purported facts.
Read Article →Scientific American column on Duarte et al
Valdesolo covers the BBS paper well. Openness and RWA scales encode urban-left taste; conservatives rarely endorse the cartoon items treated as “high.”
Read Article →Thoughts on Gelman comment
Political homogeneity threatens social-science validity because ideologies smuggle human-nature assumptions into measures. Diversity is an epistemic tool.
Read Article →How not to report science
Scientific American attacked Nic Lewis on aerosol forcing without quoting him. One-sided climate coverage is advocacy, not science journalism.
Read Article →Methods
To learn why skeptics think as they do, read their own accounts--not a blog survey that ties them to moon-hoax items almost none of them endorse.
Read Article →I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views: reflections of a sellout; how diversity would strengthen social science (Updated)
A PhD program rejected the author after a Jimmy Carter critique. Viewpoint discrimination harms validity; social science needs heterodox voices.
Read Article →How one paleo-participant can change the outcome of a study
A 32,757-year-old in Lewandowsky’s PLOS ONE file erased real age correlations. Minors stayed in; authors knew for a year and still reported false results.
Read Article →New Yorker article
Konnikova’s New Yorker piece frames the BBS paper as anti-Republican bias. The deeper problem is one academic subculture’s assumptions in methods.
Read Article →The art of evasion
Cook’s team never answered the fraud case. They claimed blind, independent raters they did not use; without those methods, there are no results.
Read Article →Harms
Have you been harmed after being labeled a climate skeptic? The post asks whether Lewandowsky’s false hoax links leaked into work and dating.
Read Article →Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97%
Cook et al. coded stove surveys, housing papers, and TV-news studies as AGW endorsement. The 97% figure is fraudulent and should be retracted.
Read Article →More fraud
Lewandowsky claimed free-marketeers reject HIV and smoking science. Data show 95-96% agreement; correlations turned assent into “rejection.”
Read Article →Lewandowsky fraud
Lewandowsky’s moon-landing title is false: 3 of 1,145 endorsed both hoaxes. The paper slanders skeptics and should be retracted as scientific fraud.
Read Article →Ignore climate consensus studies based on random people rating journal article abstracts.
Cook’s 97% paper counted stove surveys and psychology abstracts as climate endorsement. Activist raters cannot measure a scientific consensus.
Read Article →