the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Snipped at Psychological Science

Posted by Jeff Id on November 4, 2013

I seem to have a way with people.  While they did allow quite a bit of critique in the replies, and nearly all were incredibly critical, my comments were snipped.  — The Subterranean War on Science

I’ll just reproduce the critique here then:

I can’t believe the self-righteous tone of these alleged scientists. I also am stunned at the fact that fake work like this continues to be touted as having any foundation in actual science.

Whether you agree with their other work or not, this paper is nothing but government funded pro-government propaganda and they, and their coworkers, should each be ashamed at having their names and institutions associated with it. Completely disgusted.

I take it that means they truly miss me.

7 Responses to “Snipped at Psychological Science”

  1. Brian H said

    😉 Well, you weren’t exactly impersonal and impartial! Accurate and pertinent, perhaps, but ….

  2. Johnbuk said

    Not too many fans over on the APS site for the Lew and Mikey moan-in. Well done Jeff keep sticking it to these pathetic creatures.

  3. hunter said

    It seems like “Psychologial Science” is joining “military Intelligence” in the long list of oxymorons.

  4. tlitb1 said

    It is not just you, many people have been snipped without any apparent common reason, for instance, Warren Pearce posted an unoffensive comment that has not appeared. You might want to comment over at Nottingham University where Warren Pearce has a blog post on this?

  5. RomanM said

    Not surprising that your comment was snipped. They must have needed the electrons for this rare supportive (albeit grade school level) gem from the commenter ratings:

    Seriosly, I’m a weblog fan and with the entire blogs on the market now, not all of them that has been posted stands out like yours does. Your weblog caught my eye and I really like your concepts that you’ve benn shared with us..Thumbs up!

    The moderators of the Psych Science web site are not even capable of recognizing simple robotic spam when they see it. The link to “ratings'” web site leads to a review of fake electronic cigarettes! It must have been attracted by the erudite references to smoking in Lewandowsky’s diatribe. 😉

  6. RomanM said

    Sorry – I omitted the link to the comment itself.

  7. omanuel said


    I admire your courage for calling a spade a shovel, but I must also admit that confronting government-sponsored “scientists” with factual information has been as useless as “pouring water on a duck’s back.”

    My autobiography identified questionable adjustments made in nuclear and solar sciences in 1945-1946:

    1. Why was the internal composition of the Sun changed from mostly iron (Fe) in 1945 to mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946 ?

    2. Why did textbooks replace Nobel Laureate Francis W. Aston’s rigorously valid “nuclear packing fraction” with von Weizsacker’s convincing but deceptive “nuclear binding energy” after the Second World War?

    Experimental data that falsify both adjustments are given in my autobiography:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: