The Lewandowsky affair has taken off again with an article at
by Brandon Shollenberger which establishes that the Lewandowsky et al 2013 article “Recursive Fury” misquotes Foxgoose, Nathan Kurz and me.
In comments Foxgoose, Barry Woods, and Joanna Nova express the intention to take this further, (I particularly recommend Foxgoose’s comment at March 11, 2013 at 2:45 am) and Steve McIntyre announces a forthcoming article.
This will certainly be an event. There’s a certain amount of discussion going on behind the scenes, but no agreement about how best to proceed. (Oh for some big oil money to organise us into a disciplined bunch of astroturfers!) The link to the “Recursive Fury” article has been removed from the journal’s website at
following Jeff Condon’s complaint, but not before the article had been downloaded 4,500 times, and it can still be downloaded by googling the title.
I’m working slowly through the references, trying to ascertain exactly what Jo Nova, Anthony Watts Steve McIntyre, ROM, and I are being accused of in figure 3 of the article. The specific accusations are addressed to us as first perpetrators of a number of conspiratorial ideas, but they presumably apply to anyone else who expressed the same ideas, and also to Delingpole and Montford, who are cited as examples in the text.. The six criteria for “conspiratorial ideation” are outlined in pages 10 and 11 of the paper. Despite a lot of pseudo-scientific guff, it seems to come down to paranoia, and I’m wondering whether that would count as libel.
Among the moves being considered, (or actively pursued – how would I know? I’m not a cat herder) are
– complaints to the journals concerned (Psychological Scence and Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences)
– complaints to the University of Western Australia
– legal moves
Another thing I’m working on (and, independently, Barry Woods is too) is a timeline of who said and did what when. I’ve already made some errors of attribution, and for that I apologise.
I’m not sure what I can do to be useful, except explore the references in the article and work on a timeline. I’m particularly interested in establishing the input of those who escaped the notice of Lewandowsky et al, eg manicbeancounter, Katabasis, A Scott, and DGH. (I’m sure there are many more)
I’l put up a skeleton timeline soon. All contributions welcome. And all suggestions of how to proceed, or particular avenues to explore. Also legal advice on whether accusations of psychological defects are libellous.