Defense of the PACE trial is based on argumentation fallacies

[Valentijn]

I don't doubt that this sort of mental chicanery is common practice among those trying to wriggle past the justice system (and Professors of Law will be pretty wise to that).

I'm a former (medically retired?) attorney, and in law school we learned to write in different ways, for different audiences. In court the purpose is to persuade, whereas internal discussion of a case in a law firm would be focused on objectively informing co-workers about the strengths and weaknesses of a case, and the likelihood of its success.

The purpose of scientific research papers should always be to inform. Yet the BPS papers are typically focused on persuasion. The "facts" are collected and repeatedly presented in a form which is used to support their case, rather in the manner which is most informative. Instead of showing how the laws and principles of biology or psychology support their outcome, they focus on the philosophy of why their desired outcome should be the best one.

I doubt any of these researchers have ever engaged in science, or even understand what it is. They're a bunch of bullshit artists arguing a meritless case, and they're relying on personality, theatrics, and systemic cronyism to pull it off.

 

[alex3619]

OK guys, remember the thread topic... lolol: "
Defense of the PACE trial is based on argumentation fallacies"

I just don't understand why the author left so many great ones out. We could make a fun game out of finding them...

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/main/logicalfallacies?from=main.youfaillogicforever

I was pleased to read this. A big part of what I was working on for my book involves detailing the fallacies. However that is on long-term and maybe permanent hold. I have said elsewhere that they use a shotgun approach to fallacies, spraying them without mercy like a Tommy gun can spray bullets, in the hopes it will persuade. This is pervasive throughout the PACE literature.

 

[A.B.]

Much of the BPS literature is based on the "correlation is causation" and "cherrypicking" fallacies.

Also on the "ignoring the problems associated with lack of blinding" when interpreting results.

 

[Jenny TipsforME]

The purpose of scientific research papers should always be to inform. Yet the BPS papers are typically focused on persuasion. The "facts" are collected and repeatedly presented in a form which is used to support their case, rather in the manner which is most informative.

I hadn't thought of this before but I think this is a key aspect of why we find this genre of research papers so frustrating. Obviously all researchers are liable to biases but most are aiming to be neutral and informative (and sometimes fail). This is different from the research papers being a form of propaganda and leaning heavily on Persuasion techniques.

Although as far as the PACE debate is concerned it is hard to find anyone neutral. It is the Marmite of research trials.

BTW I loved this particular paper. Does anyone here know Steven Lubet?

 

[Sean]

I have said elsewhere that they use a shotgun approach to fallacies, spraying them without mercy like a Tommy gun can spray bullets, in the hopes it will persuade. This is pervasive throughout the PACE literature.

The Gish Gallop.

 

[Barry53]

The purpose of scientific research papers should always be to inform. Yet the BPS papers are typically focused on persuasion. The "facts" are collected and repeatedly presented in a form which is used to support their case, rather in the manner which is most informative. Instead of showing how the laws and principles of biology or psychology support their outcome, they focus on the philosophy of why their desired outcome should be the best one.

Fascinating and spot on I think. And you are right: Not only are their trials excessively reliant upon subjectivity, the actual style and presentation mode of their papers is highly subjective, and thereby very unprofessional.

Could it be that coercion, persuasion, sleight of mind, is what underpins psychological interventions anyway? And I'm not being as bigoted as I might seem, because I know for sure there are some very good, sincere and high integrity psychology professionals. But it just seems to me the tools of their trade, though maybe valid enough when applied with high integrity and compassion, are nonetheless very dangerous if not applied this way. Are these the very tools/skills that also allow unscrupulous, rock bottom integrity practitioners to deeply manipulate broad opinions so effectively?

If this ever does get to some form of official enquiry, hopefully an overhaul of the code of practice for psychologists will be addressed. Included within that should be an edict to not abuse these skills by manipulating opinions to their own ends. It feels like a form of factional corruption.

 

[Esther12]

@Dolphin - looks like you were posting comments about the Laws paper in the thread on the Lubet paper.

 

[Wolfiness]

Um… sorry for overenthusiasm last night.
I still maintain "loss of judgement due to hypοmanic-type state" is just as valid an ME excuse as PEM, but still, sorry.