Research misconduct complaints and institutional logics: The case of Hans Eysenck and the British Psychological Society, 2020, Pelosi et al

Paywall, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1359105320963542
Sci hub, https://sci-hub.se/10.1177/1359105320963542

Institutional Logics, the British Psychological Society and Hans Eysenck
https://davidfmarks.com/2020/10/29/...itish-psychological-society-and-hans-eysenck/

 

('the Society' is The British Psychological Society); much the same attitude as Cochrane, BMJ, the Lancet.........

 

Everything I have seen on the subject suggests to me that those claims, and many more derived from them, are widely believed in UK medicine and psychology, hence a likely strong resistance to having to deal with this. It's blatant that the whole thing was fraudulent but professionals, institutions even, actually ate the onion and continue to believe in the lies, as they are in line with a long tradition of similar beliefs.

How does a system working in a tightly insulated thought bubble deal with an ideology it truly believes in and reconciles the fraudulent research that underlies it? Why, by waiting it out, it seems, hoping it just magically goes away and they can just continue promoting those beliefs.

Escalation of commitment is very unforgiving, it often places people in situations where they have to choose between firm personal convictions, delusional but nonetheless very strong, and professional obligations. It's very hard to resist the former, few people ever do. Hence why pseudoscience has to be resisted from the start, the asymmetry of bullshit is universal, it's a guest that never leaves without being kicked out.

 

No wonder David T runs in to all sorts of brick walls when psychiatric, psychological, and medical institutions sat on this extravagant fraud for decades despite repeated criticisms from insiders.