Rigor, of course, but put a lid on the aggression & call off the social media hate mobs.

## Recent Comments

- Eric Vlach on Headline permutations
- Eric Vlach on Headline permutations
- Eric Vlach on Headline permutations
- Ken Schulz on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- rm bloom on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- jim on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- Adede on Tessa Hadley on John Updike
- Ken Schulz on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- Grayson Reim on David Brooks discovers Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State!
- Ken Schulz on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- Anoneuoid on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- Anonymous on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- Joshua on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- i e rabinovitz on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- Andrew on David Brooks discovers Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State!
- Anoneuoid on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- Anoneuoid on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- Grayson Reim on David Brooks discovers Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State!
- rm bloom on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?
- Joshua on What about that new paper estimating the effects of lockdowns etc?

## Categories

He made it to the finish line well compensated, widely lauded, and comfortable. Isn’t that what it’s all about? /snark off

Amazing, 88 papers.

When his retraction count hits 88, you’re going to see some serious shit.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14719953-800-double-take-on-a-fake/ — a 1995 review of a book on the fraudulent Sir Cyril Burt.

“Burt’s most famous pupil Hans Eysenck …writes a witty and often wise chapter. In his experience, Burt was a good teacher but a lousy colleague. He meddled, bullied, accused Eysenck of moral turpitude, wrote endless papers under pseudonyms, put his pupils’ names on papers they didn’t write – papers which, of course, backed Burt’s ideas. Eysenck was also given warnings on how foreigners like him should behave if they didn’t want to upset their British betters. Given this catalogue, he accepts that Burt certainly had it in him to cheat….

In a neat final twist Eysenck argues that Burt is not unique. Fine scientists have often faked or massaged their data. Newton and Kepler did it. It was a pity to spoil beautiful theories because the facts didn’t quite fit yet. This book reveals much about the passions of psychologists and is surprisingly amusing.”