If psychologists want to be taken seriously, and want psychology to be called “a science”, they need to elect a director who knows what science is.

Executive Director: Professor Lyn Littlefield OAM FAPS
“The advertisement, ‘Psychology and
the New Climate Storm’ misuses psychology-based arguments to add
credibility to myths and misinformation about climate change. In doing
so, the authors illustrate aptly the very error bias (confirmation bias)
they are erroneously attributing to the climate science community.”
It’s the “the pot calling the kettle black”, exclaims Littlefield.
But since her arguments are entirely fallacies, this is the kettle
calling the pot calling the kettle black. The Climate Study Group
mentioned many scientific observations, and in reply Lyn Littlefield
can’t find an error in any of them, she can only cite “the consensus”.
So instead of using a thermometer to measure the temperature, she wants
to use keyword studies in abstracts of publications, and pronouncements
of sub-committees of scientific associations. Hey, it’s not like
consensuses have been wrong before, or grants committees, journal
editors, and scientists could possibly have any personal motivations,
training deficits, or biases, right? But who would expect a psychologist
to spot those…Littlefield seems to think that scientists are robots. She talks of “vested interests” of the skeptics, but is blind to the 3500:1 ratio of funding for climate “belief”. Then she accuses skeptics of cherry picking and bias. It’s projection, projection all the way down.
The world cooled for 37 years while CO2 rose. Does that matter? No, says Lyn, the Royal Society was founded in 1662. Welcome to a conversation with a blind believer. Seriously, the good scientific psychologists need to speak up lest the fawning confused believers in their profession stay glued to the public mouth-piece. (Lucky Jose Duarte has spoken, and Littlefield should read his blog. Where are the other good psychs?)
Littlefield wants to talk “fallacies”, so let’s take her “jumping to conclusions” fallacy and raise it. Those who jump to assume long reports from human committees are “facts” are falling for the fallacy known as “argument from authority”. Real scientists look at the data — which is exactly what the Climate Study Group did."
No comments:
Post a Comment