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

## Recent Comments

- Carlos Ungil on Thomas Basbøll will like this post (analogy between common—indeed, inevitable—mistakes in drawing, and inevitable mistakes in statistical reasoning).
- Martha (Smith) on Thomas Basbøll will like this post (analogy between common—indeed, inevitable—mistakes in drawing, and inevitable mistakes in statistical reasoning).
- Phil on Thomas Basbøll will like this post (analogy between common—indeed, inevitable—mistakes in drawing, and inevitable mistakes in statistical reasoning).
- Martha (Smith) on Thomas Basbøll will like this post (analogy between common—indeed, inevitable—mistakes in drawing, and inevitable mistakes in statistical reasoning).
- jim on Thomas Basbøll will like this post (analogy between common—indeed, inevitable—mistakes in drawing, and inevitable mistakes in statistical reasoning).
- jim on Thomas Basbøll will like this post (analogy between common—indeed, inevitable—mistakes in drawing, and inevitable mistakes in statistical reasoning).
- Tom Passin on Thomas Basbøll will like this post (analogy between common—indeed, inevitable—mistakes in drawing, and inevitable mistakes in statistical reasoning).
- Daniel Lakeland on Thomas Basbøll will like this post (analogy between common—indeed, inevitable—mistakes in drawing, and inevitable mistakes in statistical reasoning).
- Raghuveer Parthasarathy on Thomas Basbøll will like this post (analogy between common—indeed, inevitable—mistakes in drawing, and inevitable mistakes in statistical reasoning).
- Martha (Smith) on Thomas Basbøll will like this post (analogy between common—indeed, inevitable—mistakes in drawing, and inevitable mistakes in statistical reasoning).
- Andrew on Thomas Basbøll will like this post (analogy between common—indeed, inevitable—mistakes in drawing, and inevitable mistakes in statistical reasoning).
- jim on Thomas Basbøll will like this post (analogy between common—indeed, inevitable—mistakes in drawing, and inevitable mistakes in statistical reasoning).
- Daniel Lakeland on Thomas Basbøll will like this post (analogy between common—indeed, inevitable—mistakes in drawing, and inevitable mistakes in statistical reasoning).
- Martha (Smith) on Know your data, recode missing data codes
- Andrew on Thomas Basbøll will like this post (analogy between common—indeed, inevitable—mistakes in drawing, and inevitable mistakes in statistical reasoning).
- Andrew on Somethings do not seem to spread easily – the role of simulation in statistical practice and perhaps theory.
- Martha (Smith) on Somethings do not seem to spread easily – the role of simulation in statistical practice and perhaps theory.
- Martha (Smith) on Himmicanes again

## 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.”