Better Science through Better Data 25th October 2017 - Esther Crawley!

TiredSam said:
Why does nobody in her scientific audiences seem to spot it? Her ridiculous performances are usually followed by tweets of support. She seems to know something we don't about getting away with this kind of stuff.
Click to expand...
They probably aren't that scientific. Based on the tweets, it's a lot of enthusiastic liberal arts students who still believe everything they're told.

Trish said:
I don't understand how she keeps being invited to give keynote addresses at so many conferences at which she seems to present variations on the same theme, and every time she seems to be completely believed by her audiences.
Click to expand...
Connections, and I wouldn't be surprised if she's doing it for free. Some speakers might expect to have expenses paid, but she's on a campaign against ME patients, so she's probably seeking these conferences out personally instead of being contacted and invited to speak. I once made a comment about these clowns eventually being reduced to shouting on street corners, and I think Crawley's moving in that direction very briskly.

Trish said:
She talks about how wonderful Bristol University have been in supporting her. Where has their objectivity gone? Why have they not investigated? I don't understand how she gets away with it, along with the terrible quality of her research. How on earth can anyone stop her?
Click to expand...
Crawley cannot be reasoned with, so her university should be. Perhaps a targeted and persistent campaign of our own is needed to make that happen. But after years or decades, I imagine she has embedded herself very well there, and made all of the necessary connections. Peter White must have done the same at QMUL for them to pay 250,000 pounds for their ridiculous defense of hiding PACE data.
 
Last edited:
Woolie said:
Pedants' corner.

Inferring is something a listener does. A listener can infer things from a statement that the speaker did not deliberately intend. Implying is something a speaker does. There is intentionality: the speaker deliberately sets up the statement so that the average listener is able to understand the implication.

Edit: I hope you also noticed my insufferably correct use of the plural possessive in "pedants' ".
Click to expand...

Oh, Woolie, what a bloomer!

Intentionality is a philosophical concept and is defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs". The once obsolete term dates from medieval scholastic philosophy, but in more recent times it has been resurrected by Franz Brentano and adopted by Edmund Husserl. The earliest theory of intentionality is associated with St. Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God, and with his tenets distinguishing between objects that exist in the understanding and objects that exist in reality. (Wikipedia)

Intentionality has nothing to do with intention, though to make such a mistake puts the user in the same boat as the eminent philosopher Daniel Dennett. It is a perfect example of how philosophers believe they are word purists yet mangle language more than anyone else. 'Intentional' is an adjective derived from intent via the present day usage of intention, but intentionality derives from the obsolete term 'intention', (comparable to extension and in linguistics intension and extension, which are different again, so one has to distinguish intentionality from intensionality) meaning being directed towards something as in an arrow. One can say there is intent, or that there is an intentional aspect, but not intentionality, if one is meaning purpose.

Now hows about that for pedantry?
 
Woolie said:
Edit: I hope you also noticed my insufferably correct use of the plural possessive in "pedants' ".
Click to expand...
I think you'd have been better off using the singular possessive "pedant's" and keeping the high ground to yourself. By using "pedants' " you unintentionally caused @Jonathan Edwards to infer that this was a group thing and to come and point out your bloomer. Or was that your purpose?

Whatever, as is traditional when two pedants meet, within in couple of exchanges it's all about semantics.
 
Cheshire said:
Click to expand...


Anonymisation and Re-identification is an interesting and quite active research area. But Crawley isn't adding to it my making baseless claims. If I remember correctly the information tribunal were not impressed by Anderson's claims that reidentification would be possible with the PACE data. Re-identification shouldn't involve already having good knowledge of the person or committing a crime such as trawling NHS databases.

I think this is quite a good article on the issues

https://www.georgetownlawtechreview.org/re-identification-of-anonymized-data/GLTR-04-2017/

Data re-identification occurs when personally identifying information is discoverable in scrubbed or so-called “anonymized” data. When a scrubbed data set is re-identified, either direct or indirect identifiers become known and the individual can be identified. Direct identifiers reveal the real identity of the person involved, while the indirect identifiers will often provide more information about the person’s preferences and habits. Scrubbed data can be re-identified through three methods: insufficient de-identification, pseudonym reversal, or combing datasets. These techniques are not mutually exclusive; all three can be used in tandem to re-identify scrubbed data.
Click to expand...

Personally I don't see how people with a fluctuating condition could be identified from questionnaire scores. Even when combined with other data.
 
[/QUOTE]
Jonathan Edwards said:
I am not suggesting anyone should back off but I am seriously thinking Dr Crawley needs some help. She is way out of line in terms of what is acceptable in terms of scientists' behaviour. Since the summer there seems have been a change to something altogether bizarre. I am not surprised that Dr Newton has left the CMRC board. I wonder why Dr Holgate has not tried to defuse the situation. This sort of thing can only end in tears. It is almost as if she is aping the behaviour she attributes to others. I cannot do anything but someone close to her ought to step in and help - for everyone's sake.
Click to expand...


Yes, following this lecture, for the first time, my contempt for Prof Crawley was tempered by just the faintest flicker of pity. It’s almost as though she knows she is surrounded and there is no hope of victory but rather than surrender she’s charging out, all guns blazing, in a desperate act of self-destruction.

As for “aping the behaviour she attributes in others”, this seems to be a common theme with PACE Club. As I suggested before on PR, it seems to be what psychologists refer to as “projection”:

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection ...

Psychological projection


Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually intolerant may constantly accuse other people of being intolerant. It incorporates blame shifting.

According to some research, the projection of one's unconscious qualities onto others is a common process in everyday life.[2]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Robert 1973 said:
Yes, following this lecture, for the first time, my contempt for Prof Crawley was tempered by just the faintest flicker of pity. It’s almost as though she knows she is surrounded and there is no hope of victory but rather than surrender she’s charging out, all guns blazing, in a desperate act of self-destruction.

As for “aping the behaviour she attributes in others”, this seems to be a common theme with PACE Club. As I suggested before on PR, it seems to be what psychologists refer to as “projection”:

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection ...
Click to expand...

Then you're a better man than me. Someone that inflicts so much harm to a very vulnerable patient-group(me-patients), and out of those the most vulnerable off all, namely children, I have nothing but contempt for her. And I honestly can't wait to see herself dig an ever deeper hole.
 
Robert 1973 said:
Yes, following this lecture, for the first time, my contempt for Prof Crawley was tempered by just the faintest flicker of pity. It’s almost as though she knows she is surrounded and there is no hope of victory but rather than surrender she’s charging out, all guns blazing, in a desperate act of self-destruction.

As for “aping the behaviour she attributes in others”, this seems to be a common theme with PACE Club. As I suggested before on PR, it seems to be what psychologists refer to as “projection”:
Click to expand...

It's fun using psychobabble against psychobabblers, but it's just that, psychobabble and fun. In my opinion freudian bollocks shouldn't be used to establish a flicker of pity for Esther Crawley.
 
I want the likes of Crawley and Wessely, etc, removed from power and held properly accountable as soon as possible, and the history books to accurately record what happened and who was guilty.

But nothing more. Once that happens then I have no further interest in wasting a single second of my life on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom