"Making It All Up The behavioral sciences scandal"

Two points I found especially noteworthy. One:

Behavioral science has many weaknesses unique to itself. Remember that the point of the discipline is to discover general truths that will be useful in predicting human behavior. More than 70 percent of the world’s published psychology studies are generated in the United States. Two-thirds of them draw their subjects exclusively from the pool of U.S. undergraduates, according to a survey by a Canadian economist named Joseph Henrich and two colleagues. And most of those are students who enroll in psychology classes. White, most of them; middle- or upper-class; college educated, with a taste for social science: not John Q. Public. 


Milgram, his admirers believed, had unmasked the Nazi within us all.

Did he? A formidable sample of more than 600 subjects took part in his original study, Milgram said. As the psychologist Gina Perry pointed out in a devastating account, Beyond the Shock Machine, the number was misleading. The 65 percent figure came from a “baseline” experiment; the 600 were spread out across more than a dozen other experiments that were variations of the baseline. A large majority of the 600 did not increase the voltage to inflict severe pain. As for the the participants in the baseline experiment who did inflict the worst shocks, they were 65 percent of a group of only 40 subjects. They were all male, most of them college students, who had been recruited through a newspaper advertisement and paid $4.50 to participate. 

The famous 65 percent thus comprised 26 men. How we get from the 26 Yalies in a New Haven psych lab to the antisemitic psychosis of Nazi Germany has never been explained. 

(A minor note: whether Mengele had to be ordered to do what he did is cast in doubt by the fine analysis of Albert Breton and Ronald Wintrobe, "The Bureaucracy of Murder Revisited," Journal of Political Economy, October  1986.)

Related: "How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop".

Related and about economics: "Coping With Unreplicability" and "Why aren’t there more retractions in business and economics journals?"

"Failed Climate Scientists Call For RICO Investigation To Stop Criticisms, And Non-Scientist Claims Scientists Will Cause Next Genocide"

William M. Briggs posts a fine response to some Global Warming Fascists. It starts this way:

If I ever meet NCAR’s Keven Trenberth (again), I’m going to punch him in the mouth. Same thing if I cross paths with Rutgers’ Alan Robock. Pow! Right in the kisser. I’m too much of a gentleman to pop one across the chops of University of Maryland’s Eugenia Kalnay, but she has it coming.


These cowards, these inferior intellects, these cry babies, these poor losers, these promulgators of a failed science want to sic the full force and might of United States Government on persons like yours truly and the companies or organizations that might fund me. (None do, unfortunately.)

There is a lot of good stuff at Mr. Briggs's site. In particular, there's great reading on Global Warming. See, for examples, these:

"A Citizen’s Guide to Global Warming Evidence".

"Natural Variations In Weather DO NOT Explain The ‘Pause’: Update, With Letter to Nature".

"We Know The Climate Is Warming Because It Isn’t".

But there's more than Global Warming. Two others I highly recommend are "The Science-Is-Self-Correcting Fallacy" and "The True Meaning Of Statistical Models".

(Initial link courtesy of Michael Greenspan.)