Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Keith Windschuttle has just published a hoax article full of pseudo-science in Quadrant. And it wasn't this article by Tim Curtin which contains such gems as the claim that Arrhenius borrowed his formulation of the enhanced greenhouse effect from Malthus (he didn't), that the water vapour from burning fossil fuels is a more important greenhouse gas that CO2 (ignoring the fact that the CO2 stays in the atmosphere 10,000 times as long) and attributing all of the increase in food production in the last thirty years to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (I swear that I am not making this up).
By comparison, the hoax article seems almost reasonable, though the proposal to use genetically modified mosquitoes to deliver drugs seems a bit of a give away:
A trawl through two of CSIRO's annual reports reveals that the organisation had previously abandoned plans to commercialise two other projects which involved modifying organisms with an array of human gene sequences. ... Another was modification of malaria mosquitoes so they carry genes which produce human antibodies in their gut; thus rendering their bite less dangerous.
And the very first sentence of the hoax is good:
Quadrant readers will remember America's "science wars", spearheaded by the masterful Sokal hoax, a "hodgepodge of unsupported arguments, outright mistakes, and impenetrable jargon" designed to challenge standards of logic, truth and intellectual enquiry in scientific debate.
Windschuttle's response is priceless. He denies that the piece is a hoax:
Rather than a hoax, her article is simply a piece of fraudulent journalism submitted to Quadrant under false pretences.
There is lots of discussion of this matter: Margaret Simons, Larvatus Prodeo, Harry Clark, Andrew Norton and David Marr:
After a terrible two hours, Keith Windschuttle convinced himself he hadn't been hoaxed at all. He was greatly relieved. How embarrassing such a stumble could have been for this fierce nitpicker, scourge of sloppy academics and current editor of the conservative Quadrant magazine.
Politics
Comments
Since I've criticised Tim Curtin in this post, he's allowed to post to this thread. He remains banned from commenting on any other post.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | January 6, 2009 10:28 AM
And Windschuttle is still a skeptical skeptic filled with skeptical skepticism! If he got hoodwinked by a
hoaxpiece of fraudulent journalism[1], it's not his fault for being a gullible idiot. It's the fault of ... ... ... liberals.[1] well, it's the same either way...
Posted by: bi -- IJI | January 6, 2009 11:44 AM
The phrase 'baking mental pretzels' always springs to mind whenever I see the clueless rationalising away their idiocy.
Posted by: DavidONE | January 6, 2009 12:30 PM
There is some irony in Windy being tripped up by inattention to footnotes, but beyond that its a pretty unimpressive prank IMHO. Quadrant deserves what it gets for its AGW pseudoscience line but there is a greater irony there that the hoaxer's stated aim was to bravely show chinks in the empirical armor of scientists (how original ...) when the only people who do and can take down Quadrant for its nonsense are ... scientists.
Posted by: Amanda | January 6, 2009 12:55 PM
Having been delighted by Sokal years ago, I was wondering from the earlier Quadrant discussions here if someone would attempt a repeat. Yes!
More seriously, this kind of activity is similar to several important ones in computing.
1) Quality assurance organization independent of developers and strong enough to hold a release if there are real problems.
2) And even more similar, use of outside security reviews or even better, unnannounced penetration attempts by experienced teams.
Of course, on this case, it looks like the equivalent of Quadrant publishing the root password and encryption keys for everything they have.
Posted by: John Mashey | January 6, 2009 1:28 PM
What is the larger objective of the hoax? Is it to expose Windschuttle as a gullible ignoramus (done) or is to attack biotech, especially genetically modified organisms? Is this part of a bio-Luddite agenda of banning GMOs? I don't know.
The Sokal hoax was not just directed against Social Text, which was simply a convenient vehicle for the bogus article, but postmodernist sociology of scientific knowledge in general. Likewise, the hoax article about preference for blondes which appeared in Medical Hypotheses was not directed against the journal so much as against the field of evolutionary psychology.
Posted by: Colugo | January 6, 2009 1:49 PM
Trackback. Best summary post of the lot, thanks Tim.
Posted by: skepticlawyer | January 6, 2009 3:52 PM
Does this suggest that Bob Carter is soon to be revealed as a clever hoax?
Please?
Posted by: Gareth | January 6, 2009 4:25 PM
6 - the Diary of a hoax gives a pretty clear rationale behind this hoax "This experiment wasn't designed with ill-intent, but to uncover hypocrisy in knowledge-claims, and also spark public debate about standards of truth when anything is claimed in the name of 'science'". The blog also reports that Windschuttle himself stated of the Sokal hoax that "Anyone with a familiarity with high school science should have seen the article was a spoof and the assertions so nonsensical that they were self-evidently untrue. The fact that the editors of Social Text failed to recognise it for what it was, and published it in all faith as a serious academic article, demonstrated the paucity of their understanding of the very field of which they had long been critics."
So, she constructed an article in pseudoscience speak that played to the agenda of Quadrant, but which contained no logical train of thought or coherent argument This makes his response all the more interesting - I cannot work out whether he has actually missed the point?
Very amusing indeed that you could easily rewrite the above quote to say "Anyone with a familiarity with high school science should have seen the Quadrant article was a spoof and the assertions so nonsensical that they were self-evidently untrue. The fact that the editors of Quadrant failed to recognise it for what it was, and published it in all faith as a serious article, demonstrated the paucity of their understanding."
Very amusing!
Posted by: Dr Dave | January 6, 2009 4:37 PM
Much as I enjoy seeing Quadrant embarrassed, Sokal this aint. Hell, this isn't even in the league of Swift's "A Modest Proposal".
The piece, even on a second inspection, really doesn't come across as a hoax at all. The references are real, and while the claims made about them certainly are far fetched, I've read far more logically inconsistent.
In addition, the piece doesn't really seem to land itself in Quadrant's corner. The embrace of "expert" advice given in the article really goes against the grain in Quadrant, which publishes pieces that reject the scientific consensus on climate change for reasons of ideology.
So maybe Windshuttle should be more rigorous when it comes to checking references. But as an editor, he's probably quite time poor, and (obviously) not an expert in the myriad of fields that articles appearing in Quadrant focus on. And as Andrew Norton notes, the article did not seem to have a great prominence in Quadrant, appearing on page 70.
Colour me unimpressed.
Posted by: ChrisC | January 6, 2009 4:45 PM
What I found interesting was Windshuttle's comment:
This is true as far as it goes - and this is exactly why every editor of every reputable scientific journal sends submissions to appropriately qualified and/or experienced experts in the field of the submission.
That Quadrant does not (routinely?) do this indicates that it is not about peer-review. As such it cannot be considered to be a serious player in scientific matters (at the least), and it cannot be considered to have the capacity to comment upon controversial scientific issues.
Of course, everyone knows this, but the very fact of the appearance of a piece in Quadrant is considered by conservatives to lend to it credibility... obviously now shown to be certainly undeserved if the published piece is beyond the purview of the editorial staff.
It's a little ironic that Tim Curtin's adventures into climate science and plant biochemistry came out in the same issue.
Posted by: Bernard J. | January 6, 2009 5:43 PM
The Australian has the story on the front page of today's edition. It's actually quite balanced.
Posted by: Chris Nedin | January 6, 2009 6:51 PM
Meh.
The first paragraph is indeed amusing, but the rest is neither amusing nor outrageous.
The main points seem to be that the mass media cannot accurately report nuanced scientific research, and that people indulge in magical thinking with concepts like "human genes". I tend to agree, and indeed they're the kind of position that might be published on Deltoid. At any rate they're not embarrassingly irrational.
I can understand the Herald and Crikey's hunger for schadenfreude but their wishful thinking does not reflect well on them.
I took that to mean they would have antibodies against carrying malaria, which is plausible to a layman.
I wonder if this is actually true?
Posted by: Martin | January 6, 2009 6:53 PM
I think all this is going to achieve is get Quadrant some free publicity and perhaps a few additional subscribers. Quite frankly, I don't know anyone who actually reads this publication.
Posted by: Jimmy Nightingale | January 6, 2009 8:07 PM
There's less gibberish in the hoax article than in Tim Curtin's piece published alongside it. Quadrant will publish ill-informed opinion on a sciencey subject as long as the apparent ideological prejudice of the author suits its editor - did someone expect better?
Posted by: frankis | January 6, 2009 9:14 PM
Amazing, a hoax and an article by a nutcase in the one issue. What a magazine.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | January 7, 2009 12:13 AM
As expanded from A9 of what to do about poor science reporting here:
Suppose a publication lacks the expertise to assess letters/articles about science (or any other reality-based topic).
They can: a) Try to get knowledgable advisors/reviewers. b) Stop publishing stuff they simply don't understand. c) Or suffer occasional ridicule like this, which of course will haunt them, as did Sokal haunt (and change) Social Text, which at least has an editorial board these days.
I've had too many interactions with the press to believe or expect that editors are perfect and all-knowledgable, but good ones know what they know, and can add serious value in providing good content. Bad ones can subtract value, as happened here.
Posted by: John Mashey | January 7, 2009 1:38 AM
Isn't Windshuttle's culpability mainly to do with the fact that he failed to discover that the author didn't exist? My understanding is that Sharon Gould is entirely fictional and that a short phone call or even a quick google might have roused his suspicions (I did it and apart from results about the hoax found nothing).
Posted by: Tom | January 7, 2009 1:55 AM
What else do you expect from Windschuttle? He is the editor of Quadrant is he not? He rewrites history does he not? He publishes Carter does he not?
Posted by: DavidK | January 7, 2009 4:24 AM
Jason Soon (Catallaxy) makes a pretty strong case for the hoaxer being Katherine Wilson, who used to blog around the place as 'weathergirl'.
Posted by: skepticlawyer | January 7, 2009 4:48 AM
Whether you see it as a hoax or a fraud seems to depend on where you stand (who does it embarrass, my friends or my foes?). The larger point, that you shouldn't publish what you don't understand unless you get some outside help to endure that it does more than match your prejudices, is very sound. Having footnotes is interesting, but enough familiarity with the literature to ensure that a paper says what the author claims it does, is important (and would eliminate the AGW denialist and creationist literature). Just because its obscure doesn't mean it's profound, as my friend Ern Malley used to say.
Posted by: stewart | January 7, 2009 9:25 AM
Having footnotes is interesting, but enough familiarity with the literature to ensure that a paper says what the author claims it does, is important (and would eliminate the AGW denialist and creationist literature)
IME having footnotes means, to the I-wish-to-believe-because-this-comports-with-my-worldview crowd, that the talking points in the piece are equivalent to stone tablets handed down from the clouds. That is: Lomborg's book has over 3,000 footnotes!!!!!!!!!!!! WoooOOOOWWWWW! Look at the enviros squirrrrrrrm!!!!
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | January 7, 2009 11:06 AM
Windy likes anything that supports his own world view, but as the editor he has an obligation to check the articles he publishes. Irony is usually lost on people like Windy, as someone well known for attacking others over factual matters he doesn't mind publishing his own fiction, I mean "Non-Fiction", like the Tasmanian aboriginal population were not wiped out by genocide, yet where are they now Windy? Had the claims been holocaust denials we could have him deported to Germany but since it is about our Aboriginal population he gets away with his evil assertions.
Posted by: Matt H | January 7, 2009 7:29 PM
In 1973 Robert Mayne writing in the Natonal Times in the wake of the Murphy raid on A.S.I.O., claimed that he had been approached by a group of people including: a senior A.S.I.O officer, a N.S.W. Liberal M.L.A. and a Country Party M.L.C. who offered to pay him $1000 per year to produce a magazine called "Anaysis" which would use A.S.I.O. information to "discredit left wingers".The Liberal M.L.A. said that he had used similar information in Parliament and in articles that he had written. A subsequent Royal Commission into Intelligence and Security outed the Liberal M.L.A. as Peter Coleman, one time Opposition Leader and longtime(1967-1990)editor of Quadrant. What a scurrilous tradition your squalid little rag has Keith. No wonder its a fav of JWH.
Posted by: Bomba | January 8, 2009 10:10 PM
Dear Tim Lambert: your magnanimity and one-off commitment to free speech are amazing, so I am duly grateful.
Taking your comments in turn:
How do you know? Arrhenius was famous as a polymath and it is unlikely he knew nothing of Malthus and his most famous but false assertion that while populations always grow exponentially at about the same rate (they don't), food supply grows only arithmetically (it didn't and hasn't). Google has thousands of refs. linking the two names.
"The water vapour from burning fossil fuels is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2 (ignoring the fact that the CO2 stays in the atmosphere 10,000 times as long)". Your bracket contains sublime ignorance: there is no evidence that any given CO2 molecule stays 10,000 times longer up there than any given H2O molecule. CO2 molecules are constantly in and out of the atmosphere. What is lacking from the IPCC is proper inventory analysis of these relative fluxes to show which are larger in absolute and net terms over a year, CO2 or H2O. Until that has been done your claim is simply armwaving.
"...attributing all of the increase in food production in the last thirty years to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (I swear that I am not making this up)". So as a computer buff, what is your rebuttal of my regression analysis of food production (FAO data) against CO2 (Mauna Loa), fertilizer utilization, global temps (GISS), and world population? Why is the Garnaut Report's commissioned study from Crimp et al of CSIRO that shows the huge impact (30%) of enhanced CO2 to 550 ppm on wheat yields by 2030 equally wrong? What is YOUR estimate of the impact on food crop yields of the Canadell et al study's data (2007, also in IPCC, WG1, ch.7, 2007 and their GCP 2008 as well as my own paper's supporting online material)showing the absorption of CO2 emissions by the terrestrial biosphere as having grown by 3.7% pa from 1959 to 2007)?
Posted by: Tim Curtin | January 9, 2009 8:32 AM
Tim Curtin:
In other words:
Aristotle will be proud, my friends.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | January 11, 2009 11:34 AM
Thanks bi-IJI for your as ever erudite contribution: "Arrhenius 'probably' knew about Malthus. Ergo, this proves that Arrhenius borrowed his greenhouse effect formulation from Malthus." Disprove it, mate.
You added:"Ergo, global warming is a myth". Bad luck, old boy. Arrhenius claimed that 50% more atmospheric CO2 would raise global mean temps by over 3oC. We have just about managed 50% since his time, but even Gauleiter Belsen has not been able to report a global temp rise since 1896 of more than 0.73oC. Ever heard of Karl Popper?
Posted by: Tim Curtin | January 13, 2009 8:42 AM
Tim Curtin writes:
Curtin, do you even know what Arrhenius's "greenhouse formulation" was? Malthus said exactly nothing about greenhouse gases. He certainly didn't have Arrhenius's detailed model, which included the band information available at the time and a scheme to account for water vapor feedback.
Ever heard of aerosols? Or the ocean?
Yes, Arrhenisus's estimate for climate sensitivity was probably too high -- 6 K per doubling, as I recall. The actual figure is probably closer to 3 K. That's still a disaster for human agriculture and the economy.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | January 15, 2009 9:09 AM
Aristotle will be proud, my friends.
Well, he would be verry proud in a conservative way, as the his next logical step would be to find that CO2 is plant food, and this proves Malthus was wrong.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | January 15, 2009 11:33 AM