LOL. His understanding of the issues around CFS, PACE and SMILE is basically non-existant, yet he assumes that those who are better informed are concerned about what he's saying because they're stupid.
To illustrate, consider the following logical puzzles:
Some Christians are terrorists. Therefore all Christians are terrorists.
Some Jews are terrorists. Therefore all Jews are terrorists.
Some Muslims are terrorists. Therefore all Muslims are terrorists.
The answer in all cases is a clear and unambiguousno—the inference is not warranted.
Those 'logical puzzles' sure were taxing Lewandowsky, but they've taught me a valuable lesson. Now I can see that it was perfectly reasonable to present patients' concerns and campaigning about PACE and SMILE as exogenous threats to science.
Throughout their red flags Lewandowsky and Bishop lump together groups of critics, but use the singular for researchers:
Does Dr A have a track record of major errors? Has she been defensive about minor errors?
Do the critics use small errors to dismiss all of Dr A’s work?
Are the critics levelling personal attacks? Are criticisms from anonymous sources or ‘sock puppets’?
This is the same approach used by CFS researchers to slur patient critics by lumping individuals with the worst examples of behavior they can find, or the worst prejudices that they can generate. The idea that 'the critics' making criticisms from anonymous sources should raise a red flag for
a critic's concerns or request for information is perfectly playing in to the hands of those working to stigmatise CFS patients campaigning against quackery. Maybe they didn't realise this, but seeing as they specifically mention PACE, and talk of hard line opponents to CFS research as one of their few examples of areas where researchers face harassment campaigns, they did have a responsibility to look into the history of this area.
Also, if there were/are any people involved in real harassment, they are so few that they could and should be named individually. Stop this 'some critics' stuff that we have seen does serve to stigmatise and smear those patients and advocates doing good and necessary work.
(Are there any 'opponents to CFS research'? Those who are really committed to fighting against quackery like PACE and SMILE also seem committed to getting more funding for better quality research. It seems like utter BS to compare even the most angry and hate-filled campaigner to those who want less knowledge about a particular topic: it's pretty clear that this is not the motivation of any CFS campaigner).
Their ten red-flags would allow those with power to arbitrarily dismiss the concerns and requests for data of critics, eg:
Does Dr A have a record of misrepresenting evidence? Does she dismiss counter-arguments?
Do the critics have a record of cherry-picking evidence in public statements?
Who decides? Colleagues of Dr A? Those working for the institution which could be embarrassed by an association with quackery? Those working within research face quite different incentives to those who are being harmed by rubbish research. Also, it seems that 'the critics' working to show that Dr A does have a record of misrepresenting evidence could easily be viewed as raising another red flag: "Are the critics levelling personal attacks?"
Lewandowsky said:
I have no involvement in research on chronic fatigue, nor do I have any research interest in it. However, I have ample experience in studying the symptoms of pseudoscience and recognizing when an agenda or motivated cognition overpowers reasoned argument.
Really? It looked like you had swallowed down White and Crawley's bullshit with a grin.
Wonder how this expertise of his was assessed? What control did he score better than?
On the basis of that expertise, it has become quite clear that some(note that crucial word again here:some) opponents of chronic-fatigue research are not engaging in reasoned discourse but are exhibiting all the hallmarks of pseudoscience. The evidence for that is on the public record, in broad daylight, and for all to see who care to look for it.
I've seen quite a few reasonable comments from patients criticising Lewansky and explaining their concerns, in the Nature comment section and elsewhere, and he never stoops to 'discourse' with any of them. Maybe if he did he'd learn something.
He doesn't seem keen on ever actually providing any evidence for anything either. The closest he's come is posting that Guardian article that was a part of the SMC's campaign. That cannot be used to justify the claims he has made.
see here for my detailed thoughtson patients’ rights and how they can and should be protected
Did anyone else think that this was just irrelevant?
I love the conclusion. He undermines his own argument to score a cheap point:
Second, it would be illogical to conclude that just because some opposition to chronic-fatigue research relies on pseudoscience and harassment, that research is thereby vindicated and must be beyond reproach. Perhaps there are problems with some research somewhere, notwithstanding how unreasonable some critics are.
However, given how quickly people can jump to conclusions when it serves their purposes, moderate critics of chronic-fatigue research—who exist as surely as there are people of faith who are not terrorists—ought to consider whether it might not be in their best interest to distance themselves from such rhetoric lest it impair their own credibility.
After all, no one benefits if people are jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
A final sentence worthy of The Economist.
"Oh poor moderate critics, I'm just worried that some people might be lazy bigots, and be more dismissive of your concerns and requests for information because you are lumped in with those bad people as 'the critics'. To avoid that, you should distance yourselves from those who are critical of my article which lumped people together as 'the critics' (but did it in a good way)."
How about:
"Perhaps there are problems with some research somewhere, notwithstanding how unreasonable some critics are. Maybe I'll have a look before writing any more about this. But probably not."
The more examples we get of 'abuse', 'bullying' and 'harassment' from academics, the more I think that the primary problem is that lots of academics think that they and their opinions deserve to be treated with more respect than others. Also: if you're doing things that risk making life worse for hundreds of thousands of people, being 'bombarded' with thirty people sending you tweets is not a hate campaign.
edit: had to add in this quote - what a guy:
Those critics often appeared to be unencumbered by any acquaintance with what we wrote.
This after he's admitting not knowing the details of the controversies he was commenting on?