When Desiree Gets an a in Language Arts She Assumes It Was Pure Luck
What kind of organization receives all its funding from 1 source, and then claims to exist "independent?" (Aye, spot another GONGO thought).
The Conversation trumpets that information technology is "Independent" merely it's funded with $6 one thousand thousand from … the Government. As Tim Blair said "it's a baby ABC". (A Authorities organized "non government" organisation).
The Chat gets twenty,000 readers a solar day (apparently). According to the Alexa Stats, I single-handedly get about one-half the global traffic they practise. They accept an entire nation of university staff to help write stories. I've had ten guest authors and accept written over 700 posts myself.
(If what they exercise costs $six million, does that mean my site is worth $3m? Am I grossly underpaid, or are they grossly overpaid?)
This is another example of the cocky-growing-wheel of large-government. The site is dominated with stories that favor statist-big-authorities policies. They break laws of logic and reason, claim that experts are writing, but we non-experts working from dwelling can point out the errors of those with professorships in our spare time, and with no PhD.
Consider the wit and wisdom of one Stefan Lewandowsky — who writes as a Professorial Boyfriend of a misnamed topic chosen "cerebral science". If ever you needed evidence that the scientific discipline of psychology was not the same as the scientific discipline of physics, expect no further. Lewandowsky is instance written report number 1 in reasons to eject the School of Psychology back to the Faculty of the Arts.*
When another scientist impersonated someone else, stole documents, possibly created a simulated certificate, and published it all online, Lewandowsky argues this is morally all OK and it passes The Chat's editorial bar. He compares the lies to allied efforts to conceal the D-Day landing in World War 2. And then the morals of science and war are equivalent? Peradventure Lewandowsky has not noticed the two fields have slightly different aims?
Science is solely for the pursuit of truth, then he who uses lies (or specious advert homs) cheats himself and all those who fund or follow him. Deceit may win a war, just it won't help humanity principal the atmosphere.
Lewandowsky also thinks that anyone who disagrees with the government is mad, just similar in the old Soviet Spousal relationship. Information technology all fits.
Presumably he lectures with these same upstanding standards too — thus leaving a trail of students who retrieve that if their research is for "the greater expert" (and whose isn't?) then it'southward OK to steal or simulated results? Is that the aim of The University of Western Australia — to fake their way to higher knowledge? Is cheating on exams any unlike? Would you hire 1 of Lewandowsky's students?
What is science when cognitive scientists talk of "climate denial machines"? Dear Stephan, can yous define that term scientifically, or even in plain English? Which "climate" is this machine denying? Tin can yous name a single person who denies we take a climate, or that is it changing? Have you any empirical evidence to back upward that claim, or it is but the dribbling speculations of a delusional cult-fan who gets promotions and status, non through reason or show, but by being the most agile sycophant of a grant-winning theory?
Lewandowsky's writing on The Conversation is not but ethically infantile (war = science), information technology's sloppy and unresearched as well. He claims that "Co-ordinate to the Heartland Institute, "junk science" is the inquiry that has linked tobacco to lung cancer", not realizing that Heartland accept never claimed that tobacco doesn't cause cancer. Perhaps Heartland's position of assessing studies, dissimilar diseases, ages of death and odds ratios is a bit as well old fashioned for Stefan? He demonizes them by oversimplifying what they do to the betoken where he speaks untruths. Heartland are generally concerned about getting evidence on the issue of 2nd mitt fume, and on the equity of cigarette taxes that arrive beyond recouping costs of healthcare for smoking related illness. Their arroyo is far more scientific than Lewandowsky's, which involves making inaccurate sweeping statements on topics he knows picayune about. It is indeed unresearched activist statements like his that are the "junk science" noble groups like Heartland oppose, and Heartland exercise information technology to serve the public, with volunteered funding. On the other hand, Lewandowsky uses funding extracted from the public past threat of forcefulness to offering united states of america illogical, poorly studied, unreferenced and confused arguments in order to justify squandering more funds taken from the public. Wonderfully moral of yous Stephan. Quite the parasite on the public bag.
Liberty loving business and enterprising people in the West need to wake up and face the fact that big-government grows more than big-regime. Governauctus infinititus — it's practically a natural constabulary that the taxation-have from the regulating class volition never shrink of it'south own accordance. They volition take, take and accept until… something stops them. Something outside the government must push back. But who represents the voters if the House of Representatives represents itself?
Who volition argue for higher learning when our universities endorse thieves, fakers and cheats? It's time to ask other university staff at UWA if they have a problem with this policy, and if they don't protest, it'southward fourth dimension to cease funding all the "professors" who promote anti-science.
Then it'southward time, fourth dimension for business world Australia to wake up. (It'due south fourth dimension we put some thought and resources into fighting back.)
Please commenters, every time The Conversation claims to be independent, lets remind them how dependent they are on the Regime. Let'southward inquire them to find simply voluntary financial backers who earn their coin (equally opposed to helping themselves to other people'south), and so see how "independent" they really are.
Hat tip to Jaymez. Merci!
Lewandowsky is a source of much fun on this web log: Peer review denial and the abuse of science | The expiry of reason at UWA | Lewandowsky: the ABC parades a witchdoctor over again | Learn how not to reason at the University of Western Australia | The hypocrisy of the annointed | Proper noun-calling fairy dust: "Conspiracy Theorist" | Picasso Encephalon Syndrome |
*If in that location are whatsoever psychologists who disagree, exercise speak upward. I'm specially interested to hear from psychologists at UWA who empathise what the scientific method is.
Source: https://joannenova.com.au/2012/04/soaking-in-money-a-fake-independent-unscientific-conversation/
0 Response to "When Desiree Gets an a in Language Arts She Assumes It Was Pure Luck"
Publicar un comentario