Guest essay by Brandon Schollenberger
As most people reading this blog know, a paper by Stephan Lewandowsky, Recursive Fury, was recently retracted. This is a big deal as scientific papers are rarely retracted, and merely being wrong doesn’t cause it to happen. One would instinctively assume that means there was something very problematic with the paper.
That’s not how people are portraying it. Quite a few people have spun this retraction of a paper criticizing skeptics as demonstrating skeptics are in the wrong. One of them is Elaine McKewon, one of the peer-reviewers for Recursive Fury. Unfortunately, she does this by making things up.
McKewon recently published an article you can find here and here. The article contains numerous errors, to the point it grossly misrepresents Recursive Fury. This can be seen in its very first sentence:
In February 2013, the journal Frontiers in Psychology published a peer-reviewed paper which found that people who reject climate science are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.
Recursive Fury did nothing of the sort. It didn’t claim to examine relative amounts of conspiratorial ideation in any groups. It didn’t attempt to compare or quantify levels of such ideation. There is no way to read Recursive Fury as doing what Elaine McKewon claims it did. She has simply made this up.
What does it say when a peer-reviewer of a paper makes an obviously untrue claim about what the paper shows? I don’t know. What I do know is it should make everyone question McKewon’s judgment when she says:
Recursive Fury was theoretically strong, methodologically sound, and its analysis and conclusions – which re-examined and reaffirmed the link between conspiracist ideation and the rejection of science – were based on clear evidence.
But that’s not the only basic point McKewon got wrong. She also misrepresents an indisputable fact. Her portrayal of the events leading up to Recursive Fury being retracted is:
Shortly after publication, Frontiers received complaints from climate deniers who claimed they had been libelled in the paper and threatened to sue the journal unless the paper was retracted.
After taking the paper down from its website, Frontiers began its investigation and arranged a conference call so that the journal’s manager, legal counsel, editors and reviewers could discuss how to proceed.
…
Before the call ended, three academics, including me, argued that scientific journals must not be held to ransom every time someone threatens litigation. In response to our concerns, we were assured by the journal’s representatives that the legal matter would be considered settled once the two sentences had been amended as agreed.
Yet the paper remained in limbo while the journal’s investigation into the academic and ethical aspects of the study dragged on for more than a year.
The important part is where McKewon says “the paper remained in limbo.” Her portrayal holds “the paper remained in limbo” because of threats of legal action regarding two sentences which could be amended to address the complaints. That is a figment of her imagination. Here is what Brian Little, editor for the journal says happened:
The article was removed on February 6th because of a complaint about a factual error. We did due diligence, contacted the authors, had it corrected and it was put up again.
Notice the last part. Little clearly states the paper was put back online after it was amended. McKewon’s portrayal pretends this never happened. This means she can only claim “the paper remained in limbo” because of those supposed “threats of legal action” by ignoring the fact those complaints had actually been resolved.
To see what actually happened, we can simply ask the journal itself. It explains:
I think there’s a misunderstanding: the manuscript was accepted for publication by Frontiers on Feb 2, and the provisional (i.e. non proof-read) PDF was made available immediately, as we do in most cases. Because there was subsequently identified a need for authors, reviewers, editor and associates to review and Chief editors to agree on the modification of one specific line in the text, the provisional PDF was hidden on Feb 6 while this modification was agreed. The paper was then published in the agreed form on March 18, and as you know was subsequently unlinked while we deal with all the complaints and allegations.
In other words, the paper was first taken offline to address the complaints McKewon refers to. Once they were addressed, it was reposted. It was then taken offline a second time in response to other complaints. Those later complaints are what led to the paper remaining in limbo for nearly a year.
Given that, when McKewon asks:
Just how clear would the legal context need to be for Frontiers to stand up to intimidation and defend academic freedom? First, the two sentences discussed in the conference call had been amended as agreed, which satisfied the journal’s lawyer even under the former libel laws.
She shows she has no idea what she’s talking about. She’s created a story which ignores basic facts nobody disputes, facts which even the simplest of research would have uncovered. All she had to do was look at the Retraction Watch article about the paper’s retraction and follow the first link it offers for background. Or she could have asked the journal.
Only, if she had done that, she’d have found the journal says her entire argument is bogus. She claims the paper was retracted because “the journal’s management and editors were clearly intimidated by climate deniers who threatened to sue.” The journal disagrees. It says:
Our decision on the retraction of this article was taken on the basis of a number of factors. This decision had nothing to do with caving in to pressure and was driven by our own analysis of various factors and advice received.
The journal directly contradicts Elain McKewon’s argument. Had she questioned the journal for her story, she’d have known that. Had she investigated or researched the story, she’d have known the paper wasn’t placed in limbo because of the complaints she referred to. And had she reread Recursive Fury, she’d have known it did not find “people who reject climate science are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.”
But she apparently didn’t do any of that. Even though she describes herself as a “journalism PhD candidate,” she didn’t do any of the basic journalism that goes into doing a story.
And she is one of the people who approved Stephan Lewandowsky’s work for publication.
Go figure?
In The Conversation article–
https://theconversation.com/the-journal-that-gave-in-to-climate-deniers-intimidation-25085
Elaine quotes this academic (Sarah Green, Michigan Tech ) from under the retraction notice.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00293/full
“I am dumbfounded to see a scientific paper retracted by the editor because of threat of libel. The fundamental job description of a science editor should include the defense of academic freedom. I certainly expect my newspapers to defend freedom of the press; do scientific publications now hold themselves to lower standards?” – Sarah Green, Michigan Tech
This is of course presumably the same Sarah Green, who is a regular author and contributor at Skeptical Science….
The retracted paper being written by regular contributors and authors (and the founder of ) Skeptical Science….
One of the key criticism being the LOG12 survey not being held at Skeptical Science and Cook/Lewandowsky refusing to respond to this.
Sarah (which includes a link to her publication record at Michigan Tech)
https://www.skepticalscience.com/posts.php?u=3364
The Conversation really is appalling, I have had many civil comments removed, on a number of articles.Do you think there is any way for someone to get a formal response into the Conversation?
This should have been followed by a paragraph summarizing what Fury WAS about.
As others have noted, PhDs are a debased currency these days. Based on what McKeown is doing to get hers, tens of thousands of people (including our esteemed host) ought to have multiple PhDs already.
What I find most disturbing is that she has been permitted to do a PhD where the outcome is determined in advance. The answer is already there, and all that she is doing is collecting “data” to support her predetermined conclusion. That’s kinda the opposite of what my pre-post-modern understanding of what research is meant to be about.
What would I know? I went to school and university back in the days when a certain amount of rigour and discipline underpinned learning.
Are you saying that Elain McKewon believes there is a conspiracy? Well, so does Lewandowsky and Mann and…
In this case the Ph in PhD stands for “Phony”.
Brandon, yes you do know. But you are too diplomatic to state what it says. It says she never read the paper she was supposed to have reviewed. I guess that is what passes for Journalism today. Dan Rather, Martin Bashir, Piers Morgan, etc. Incompetence is the new standard it appears.
As an editor in an (unrelated) journal, I’ll say the following: It can be hard work to find diligent, qualified, and impartial reviewers. Qualification is fairly easy: Does the reviewer have a reasonable publication record in the particular area of research? A quick search on Google Scholar is usually a sufficient check. As many have pointed out, Ms. McKewon would not normally qualify on this count.
Most journals offer authors the option of listing who they think might be qualified to review the paper. This is where you can usually distinguish between authors who are really interested in publishing a good paper and those who are trying to game the system. The best authors will usually recommend high profile experts who are not collaborators or close colleagues, and certainly not former students.
A red flag immediately goes up if the recommended reviewer is a PhD student or recent PhD graduate who has prior ties with the author. For example, I recently had one author recommend referees who were all recent graduates from his own group!
So if my journal were reviewing the case, I’d immediately look into whether Prof .Lewandowsky listed Ms. McKewon as a recommended referee. (Ms. McKewon was an undergraduate at the University of Western Australia and very likely was a student in one of Prof. Lewandowsky’s courses. This would normally represent a conflict of interest. )
– TGB
Reason and their data didn’t work so hey let’s get right down and dirty with emotion and paid spin merchants, but first we’ve gotta go after those traitorous MSM journos, smother them in stinking manure and cower them for good.
Sounds like a plan Elaine and your warmist seniors will be more than happy for you to have a bash at anything under the circumstances. Undergrads, freshmen, help…..anybodeeeeee!
Mustn’t forget the primary schoolers desperadoes-
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/a_child_shows_us_the_way/
These are sick, angry, frustrated people losing their grip on power and the public teat.
I have never considered suing for libel because of that paper. And their claim that other skeptics ‘claimed to have been libeled’ is to me is nothing but a scheming way to spin a bad paper.
Throwing more and more facts at the issue
i disagree Pat, very few facts are involved , just a convoluted unsupported opinion.
Global warming should be good for prostitutes – they will be able to walk the streets scantily clad without getting chilly.
“The Conversation really is appalling, I have had many civil comments removed, on a number of articles.Do you think there is any way for someone to get a formal response into the Conversation?”
The Conversation doesn’t wish to discuss their decisions. Take it as a badge of honour.
Being the consummate journalist, Elaine McKewon will no doubt be enjoying the greater breadth of readership that a hugely successful and internationally recognised site like WUWT can offer!
(sarc)
Now we need to find out who the other reviewers were.
And how were they picked?
Why would a born-again already-believer in Lewandowsky’s conspiracy theories be chosen to review the paper? A PhD candidate in a different speciality. Were the others chosen because of their already-known support?
How does this Journal decide on reviewers? Did Lewandowsky suggest the reviewers?
That is not the definition of “peer-review” that Lewandowsky repeats endlessly.
Other reviewers had reviewed it, were named on the paper. then dropped out (AFTER publication)
Michael Wood being one of them.
“Also worth noting is that Frontiers has changed the list of reviewers on three occasions. (Frontiers names the reviewers/) The reviewers were originally said to be Elaine McKewon and Michael Wood. This was changed to McKewon and editor Viren Swami. Then the list of reviewers was changed to McKewon, Swami and Prathiba Natesan, Then Natesan was removed from the list of reviewers, returning the list to McKewon and Swami again.
I wonder how often they re-state who the reviewers of a paper and whether any other Frontiers paper has incurred three re-statements.” S Mcintyre commenting at Retraction Watch
http://retractionwatch.com/2013/03/28/why-publishers-should-explain-why-papers-disappear-the-complicated-lewandowsky-study-saga/#comment-52705
I wonder how her trashing of news media will help her in her first job interview with news media? Also, couldn’t Lew find a psychologist to review his psychology paper? Maybe there is still some ethical conduct practiced in this post modern field. Can we find out who all the reviewers are – com’on you forensic electron wizards out there.
I find it interesting that the only PhD I know personally is a conspiracy nut. I mean a full and complete 9/11 Trufer, with all the trimmings. Well qualified in his area of expertise, but a definite example that intelligence (presuming that study makes one intelligent, of course) doesn’t mean you can’t be gullible as well. Remember how many scientists believed Uri Geller could bend spoons with his mind?
BTW, wasn’t journalism better when it was created by people whose sole ability was being able to write well? Does it really take a PhD to do so?
Elaine McKewon is a third-year journalism PhD student at the University of Technology, Sydney examining coverage of climate science in Australian newspapers during 1996-2010. The primary aim of her study is to explain how the scientific consensus on climate change was reconstructed as a ‘scientific debate’ in the Australian news media.
==============
What??
Wasn’t it Australian researchers that showed the scientific consensus on ulcers was wrong? That bacteria, not stress, causes ulcers?
Why not explain how the scientific consensus on ulcers was reconstructed as a ‘scientific debate’ in the Australian new media?
The bate about climate is no different than the debate about ulcers. “Scientific consensus” has no scientific meaning. Thus is cannot be part of a “scientific debate’.
“Scientific consensus” is a political term. Thus her thesis should read as follows:
The primary aim of her study is to explain how the political debate on climate change was reconstructed as a ‘scientific debate’ in the Australian news media.
“scientific consensus”, “prostitution”.
does this suggest a strong emotional attachment to a father figure?
I see a new nonfiction book on the horizon. “Prostituting the Climate”
Conspiracy theories?
You mean like “there was no Gulf of Tonkin incident”
or “the Lusatania was carrying Arms & Ammunition”
or “critical information was witheld from the commanders at Pearl Harbor”
or “19 men armed with box-cutters hijacked 4 airplanes on 9/11/2001”
or “the woman attesting to Iraqi atrocities against Kuwait was the daughter of a Kuwati diplomat”
or “some Germans tried to assassinate Hitler in 1944”
or “insider climate scientists communicated with each other to help obstruct the publication of papers skeptical of CAGW”
Evidently there are many conspiracy theories. Some are true, some are false, some are indeterminate without additional information.
Belief in conspiracies therefore might just mean that skeptics are more likely to be critical thinkers.
This is the current listing on the paper on the Frontiers website:
Edited by: Viren Swami, University of Westminster, United Kingdom
Reviewed by:Viren Swami, University of Westminster, United Kingdom
Elaine McKewon, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Swami’s entire published work concerns the assessment of beauty. Very highly qualified…
MeKewon is quoted as saying – “Before the call ended, three academics, including me,”
I find that disturbing. First, I always thought “academics” taught. If that be the case here, God pity the students. A journalism major and she says “including me,” instead of “including myself”? And her area of study for her doctorates is “The primary aim of her study is to explain how the scientific consensus on climate change was reconstructed as a ‘scientific debate’ in the Australian news media.” And to do this she starts out by totally ignoring the facts and data laid out daily by a variety of agencies and only reading someone else’s interpretation of that data. I would guess that she will never get her PHD since she will never, EVER, be able to explain that without doing the work herself.
“This should have been followed by a paragraph summarizing what Fury WAS about.”
yep.
Here is what Recursive Fury did.
1. It identified 6 styles or patterns of conspiracy ideation drawn from published literature
For example one such pattern is NI, or nefarious intent. To explain. A person exhibits
NI styles of thinking when they attribute Nefarious Intent. You read a paper, the paper
says “The sun doesnt explain the warming”. Then rather than looking at the data and
and methods, you reject the paper and say “These warmists are just try to establish a
a socialist state” Note. There may well be a nefarious intent. Nefarious Intent only
DESCRIBES the pattern of thinking. The pattern is ” I disagree with X, therefore the
person who claims X, must have a nefarious Intent.
2. Next, they looked at the statements many skeptics made about the first Lewandowsky paper.
These statements all showed patterns ( see the 6 patterns) of conspiratorial ideation.
3. The paper did not make any arguments about the truth or falsity of the beliefs. It just
showed that people used or had these thought patterns.
Lets go over the thought patterns
Nefarious Intent: (see above)
Persecuted Victim: playing the victim
Nihilistic Skepticism: refusing to belief anything that contradicts your theory
Nothing occurs by Accident: every little incident confirms your theory
Self-Sealing reasoning: Interpreting evidence against your theory as evidence for your theory.
Something Must be Wrong: Switching between theories on the basis that something must be wrong.
############
It’s actually a good list. Its a good list because you can find people on ALL sides of the debate
using these forms of thinking.
Note: none of these forms of thinking is a method of science.
Also, you can go through any thread here or any thread at huffington or any blog and find people using the six styles of thought and reasoning. Also, SOMETIMES the style of thought is correct.
How to avoid conspiratorial ideation.
1. Stick to the data and methods
2. AVOID attributing motives. The science is more certain then your thoughts about other peoples
motives. You cant see their motives and you cant predict their motives and you cannot test them.
3. Dont play the victim.
4 Avoid Nihilistic skepticism. Guess what? you might be wrong about C02 have no effect or a small
effect.
5. Realize that things do happen by accident. yes, random shit happens.
6. Don’t switch theories. If you have a theory about why GW is wrong, stick to it or not.
If you see something wrong with your theory, you cant merely switch to another pet
theory. You cant, for example, criticize the surface record and then use it.
Summary:
Fury had the potential to be a good paper, but they needed to address Conspiratorial Ideation
on ALL SIDES of the debate. They also needed to avoid libeling people. They could have done this by using anonymous comments. Or lewandowsky could have used HIS OWN comments
as examples as he has uses the 6 mental styles above.
For example. In his first paper Lewandowsky requested that his name be hidden when posting the questionnaire. Why? well because he claimed to be a victim of harassment from skeptics.
At the time he made this claim, nobody really knew who he was. They could have used the comments from SKS folks who were convinced that I hacked Gleick. They could have shown how the entire debate is shot through with this kind of reasoning.