Rigor, of course, but put a lid on the aggression & call off the social media hate mobs.

## Recent Comments

- Bob Carpenter on Hamiltonian Monte Carlo using an adjoint-differentiated Laplace approximation: Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models and beyond
- rm bloom on “We’ve got to look at the analyses, the real granular data. It’s always tough when you’re looking at a press release to figure out what’s going on.”
- Jonathan (another one) on Understanding Janet Yellen
- Anoneuoid on Understanding Janet Yellen
- LEL in Wheat Ridge on Understanding Janet Yellen
- Thomas Basbøll on Basbøll’s Audenesque paragraph on science writing, followed by a resurrection of a 10-year-old debate on Gladwell
- Joseph Delaney on Understanding Janet Yellen
- Anoneuoid on Understanding Janet Yellen
- somebody on Hamiltonian Monte Carlo using an adjoint-differentiated Laplace approximation: Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models and beyond
- Andrew on Understanding Janet Yellen
- jim1 on Understanding Janet Yellen
- Joseph Delaney on Understanding Janet Yellen
- Bob Carpenter on Hamiltonian Monte Carlo using an adjoint-differentiated Laplace approximation: Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models and beyond
- Bob Carpenter on Hamiltonian Monte Carlo using an adjoint-differentiated Laplace approximation: Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models and beyond
- Joseph Delaney on Understanding Janet Yellen
- Tom on Hamiltonian Monte Carlo using an adjoint-differentiated Laplace approximation: Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models and beyond
- Jonathan (another one) on Understanding Janet Yellen
- Peter Dorman on Understanding Janet Yellen
- Oncodoc on Understanding Janet Yellen
- JimV on Understanding Janet Yellen

## Categories

He made it to the finish line well compensated, widely lauded, and comfortable. Isn’t that what it’s all about? /snark off

Amazing, 88 papers.

When his retraction count hits 88, you’re going to see some serious shit.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14719953-800-double-take-on-a-fake/ — a 1995 review of a book on the fraudulent Sir Cyril Burt.

“Burt’s most famous pupil Hans Eysenck …writes a witty and often wise chapter. In his experience, Burt was a good teacher but a lousy colleague. He meddled, bullied, accused Eysenck of moral turpitude, wrote endless papers under pseudonyms, put his pupils’ names on papers they didn’t write – papers which, of course, backed Burt’s ideas. Eysenck was also given warnings on how foreigners like him should behave if they didn’t want to upset their British betters. Given this catalogue, he accepts that Burt certainly had it in him to cheat….

In a neat final twist Eysenck argues that Burt is not unique. Fine scientists have often faked or massaged their data. Newton and Kepler did it. It was a pity to spoil beautiful theories because the facts didn’t quite fit yet. This book reveals much about the passions of psychologists and is surprisingly amusing.”