Over the last year, Iโve had numerous blogospheric encounters with the conservative climate โskepticโ Anthony Watts, the author of WattsUpWithThat. In the process, Iโve been particularly struck by how Watts handles inconvenient evidence.
Twice now, Iโve seen Watts make a mistake, and then seem to rationalize it, rather than simply correct it. Iโve also seen Watts shift the goalposts, refusing to accept inconvenient evidence even after saying he would do so.
Whatโs up with that?
Look: We all make mistakes. And we all adopt beliefs that later turn out to be incorrect. Thereโs nothing wrong with that per se; itโs actually quite natural. What really matters is what we do after weโre proven wrong. So letโs see what Watts does:
Research on Astroturfing. A while back, I introduced the blogosphere to a social science study on online anti-global warming astroturfing. Watts then leapt in, accusing the researchers of having โsetup fake websites to gather fake data.โ
I have no idea how Watts got his idea about the researchers setting up fake public websites. But it was incorrect. The researchers were not creating fake sites that could deceive unknowing web surfers. They were showing sites to research subjects in a lab settingโand of course, debriefing them afterwards, in line with standard procedures.
But the sites were not actually online, live for the world to view.
I pointed this out, and noted with some amusement that Watts and his commenters had been slamming the study based on a basic misconceptionโbarking up the wrong tree repeatedly, until somebody on the thread bothered to read the actual paper.
Watts then responded by further defending himselfโimplying it was the study authorsโ fault that he had misinterpreted them, because they didnโt use the actual word โIntranetโ:
Note the word โwebsiteโ, which appears 56 times in the full paper. The word โInternetโ appears once, in the bibliography, and the word โIntranetโ does not appear in the paper at all. Why wouldnโt they mention that the study was conducted on a private Intranet and not on the World Wide Web?
Answer: because it is obvious, to anyone reading the study or familiar with such research, that this is a controlled experiment in a laboratory setting, in which research subjects are shown something on a computer screen but not pointed to an actual live URL.
Watts then quickly found another reason to bash the study:
In other words, they didnโt study websites in the wild, but copied wild ones and manufactured โtameโ ones of their own design that never left the lab.
There would be some serious control problems with such a โliveโ experimentโฆnot to mention potentially lending some strength to Wattsโ initial complaint about the risk of deceiving unwitting web surfers!
Note the underlying point here. Watts launched a baseless attack on the astroturfing study. When his error was pointed out, he tried to blame the study authors, and came up with new criticisms, including protesting that they should have conducted the study in a way that he himself had previously claimed would have been deceptive and misleading, or even unethical.
On to episode two:
The BEST Study. I just wrote about this one, and it is quite telling.
A while back, Anthony Watts wrote of the headline-grabbing Berkeley BEST study that โIโm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.โ
But when the study came out and he didnโt like its findings, Watts instead engaged in a phenomenon called goalpost shifting. Look at how he now talks about the BEST work: In a recent post, he referred to the โincomplete and rushed, non quality controlled, error riddled BEST science.โ
Are we noting a common theme here?
On to episode three:
The Republican Brain: My next book will not be out for about 6 months. Nevertheless, much like the Astroturf study, Watts attacked it without reading it. He justified doing so by claiming that someone else had reviewed the book, so he could rely on that review instead:
Chris Mooney has come up with new book to explain why people like you and I are โabby-normalโ for not unthinkingly and uncritically accepting all aspects of climate disruption. I havenโt read it, though the cover itself speaks volumes. I wonโt commit the same dumb mistake that global warmingclimate change Peter Gleick committed when he wrote his bogus non-review of Donna LaFramboiseโs IPCC book, so Iโll let somebody who has reviewed it speak about it. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.Igor
But this was incorrectโRoger Pielke, Jr., had not reviewed my book, nor could he have because my book is not out. So Watts basically did commit the โdumb mistakeโ he was claiming he wouldnโt commit.
I pointed this out. So Did Watts then say, โWhoops, sorryโ? Or did he come up with more reasons to criticize me?
The proof is here. Read it for yourself.
Why is all of this significant?
If you canโt admit it when youโre wrong, you also canโt know when youโre right. If you donโt hold your opinions and beliefs tentatively, subject them to scrutiny, and then try to parse out which of them truly hold weight, then you run the risk of rushing headlong into all manner of self-serving biases.
And please note: This has nothing to do with whether or not youโre smart. Smart people (like Watts) are in fact particularly vulnerable to this problem, because theyโre extra good at rationalizing their views. Even as theyโre super awesome at finding apparent problems with the arguments of those who disagree with them, and arguing back against their opponents, theyโre often oblivious of their own biases.
But it doesnโt matter how many great arguments you can spin out to defend what you believe, if you canโt also perceive where your beliefs might be untrue. Without self criticism, all your self-supporting arguments amount to little more than spinning your wheelsโwhile you remain stuck in the mud.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts