Sentences with phrase «recursive fury»

As I am sure Sou would say, «Remember Recursive Fury» >

As most people reading this blog know, a paper by Stephan Lewandowsky, Recursive Fury, was recently retracted.

I went to this UWA publications page to see how Recursive Fury is described.

Her portrayal of the events leading up to Recursive Fury being retracted is:

8) RESPECT: Please demonstrate the research justification for the LOG12 and Recursive Fury papers is beneficial and cause no harm.

One of them is Elaine McKewon, one of the peer - reviewers for Recursive Fury.

I was initially amused to find myself in the dat of the Recursive Fury paper, alongside the exalted company of Proff Richard Betts (Met Office, Head of Climate Impacts, IPCC lead author AR4 & AR %) but not the implications..

Geoff Chambers to the editors of «Frontiers» Author of «Recursive Fury» Michael Marriott runs a blog

And had she reread Recursive Fury, she'd have known it did not find «people who reject climate science are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.»

There is no way to read Recursive Fury as doing what Elaine McKewon claims it did.

So here are some key facts about the Recursive Fury paper:

Heck, I can pull some out of Lewandowski / Cooks «Recursive Fury».

Our paper Recursive fury: conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation has been published.

The analysis has now been published in the paper «Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation.»

Recursive Fury establishes, from the peer - reviewed literature, the traits of conspiracist ideation, which is the technical term for a cognitive style commonly known as «conspiratorial thinking».

The first was about the recent paper, «Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation,» by Lewandowsky.

If it does not have the same title (or has revisions), then presumably the recursive fury paper will need to be withdrawn?

Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation.

The retraction of Recursive Fury has attracted sharp criticism from the scientific community.

Early last year, I accepted the journal's invitation to review Recursive Fury, a narrative analysis of blog posts published by climate deniers * in response to Lewandowsky's earlier work in which he and his colleagues showed that endorsement of free - market economics and a propensity for conspiratorial thinking are contributing factors in the rejection of science.

The paper, which I helped to peer - review, is called «Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideationin the blogophere in response to research on consparicist ideation.»

So when Marriott (no academic background, no relevant qualifications) was chosen by Lewandowsky to be a researcher for the now retracted — Recursive Fury» paper — !

Specifically, Study 1 is an improved version of the study reported in Recursive Fury, and Studies 2 and 3 are new and involved blind and na ive participants and confirm the initial conclusions from Recursive Fury.

Recurrent Fury reports an anonymized and greatly extended set of studies that builds on Recursive Fury.

A related earlier paper, called «Recursive Fury», was peer - reviewed and published in Frontiers in Psychology in 2013.

The latest paper also tells the story of the events surrounding Recursive Fury and the fallout from the withdrawal.

Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation Stephan Lewandowsky1 *, John Cook1, 2, Klaus Oberauer1, 3 and Michael Hubble4 1 Psychology, University of Western Australia, Australia 2 Global Change Institute, The University of Queensland, Australia 3 Psychology, University of Zurich, Switzerland 4 Climate Realities Research, Australia Conspiracist ideation has been repeatedly implicated in the rejection of scientific propositions, although empirical evidence to date has been sparse.

The paper, «Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation,» was authored by Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, Klaus Oberauer, and Michael Marriott, and published in Frontiers in Psychology: Personality Science and Individual Differences.

Recursive Fury is not about defending LOG12.

One misrepresentation of Recursive Fury is that we accuse Professor Richard Betts of the Met Office of being a conspiracy theorist because one of his quotes appears in our raw data.

As well as the Recursive Fury paper, we also published Supplementary Material containing excerpts from blog posts and some comments relevant to the various observed recursive theories.

Our objective in Recursive Fury was to demonstrate that some of those criteria arguably applied to the public discourse surrounding LOG12.

Recursive Fury documents a whole spectrum of conspiracy theories.

Sometimes a paper can move from acceptance to publication with surprising speed (as was the case with Recursive Fury).

With these insights in mind, the experience of what happened with «Recursive Fury» becomes a tremendous learning opportunity — though, as Nuccitelli points out, it's an opportunity that's been repeatedly missed in the past.

At the risk of provoking recursive fury a la Lewandowsky, his writings there could easily be turned into a psychological case study showcasing denier thought processes.