…and this is a 
That sure didn't take long. Bruce G. Charlton has chastised me.
It strikes me a sleazy and sloppy bit of journalism, unworthy of a scientist, falsely to accuse me in print of corrupt self-publishing.
All of my articles published in Medical Hypotheses since I became editor are editorials. Editor publishing editorials - you know the kind of thing?
If it had been me, I would be ashamed of myself, and would want to make a public apology.
But then you are not me! - so I expect nothing of the sort.
No reply is required or expected.
Prof. Bruce G Charlton MD Editor in Chief - Medical Hypotheses
www.elsevier.com/locate/mehy
http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/Professor of Theoretical Medicine
University of BuckinghamReader in Evolutionary Psychiatry
But if Bruce G Charlton were PZ Myers, he'd be rude and scathing and cruel, and would feel no need to apologize for publicizing the follies of a Clever Silly.
And if PZ Myers were Bruce G Charlton…oh, bleh. I don't even want to think about it.
Comments
Posted by: Anon | December 8, 2009 9:04 AM
Editorials? Speaking for yourself?
Isn't that a little bit like, oh, I dunno... blogging about something, on your own blog?
If the rules are relaxed for the former, certainly that applies to the latter.
Posted by: Rakehell | December 8, 2009 9:04 AM
Well! He sure told you.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
December 8, 2009 9:05 AM
Given his bullshit editorial about atheists, he has no right to bitch and moan about others making false accusations about him, even in the hypothetical alternate reality where PZ's comments were actually false.Posted by: Orac
|
December 8, 2009 9:13 AM
Hah!
We who've kept an eye on MH for a few years now have always known that it publishes "editorials" (often with a heavy leavening of pseudoscientific speculation). Glad to see Charlton finally admitting it.
Posted by: Ewan R | December 8, 2009 9:15 AM
His bullshit editorial about atheists is apparently the tip of a steaming brown iceberg.
I made the mistake of following the link to his blog and was amazed to learn that we dont really need edumacation, just IQ tests, science is apparently really crappy these days as compared to yesteryear, scientists are all dull dull people, if we dont embrace 'transcendental truth' then science is dead, some more about IQ, and then I had to go get something to catch the pieces of brain that were desperately attempting to escape my head through any available orifice and had to stop reading.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 8, 2009 9:15 AM
Another crank/crackpot pretending he has any integrity. Yawn. If they are going to be crazy, they shouldn't publicize it. Write their insane screeds at home on paper, and send them via the incinerator.
Posted by: Orac
|
December 8, 2009 9:16 AM
Actually, pretty much every article in MH is an editorial.
Posted by: vanharris
|
December 8, 2009 9:16 AM
University of Buckingham - isn't there something a bit, err, dodgy, about that school?
Posted by: Michael N. | December 8, 2009 9:20 AM
Was he sitting at his computer the entire time googling his name since he posted that story?
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 8, 2009 9:21 AM
With the complete understanding that your article is editorial (which can be gleaned from the Pharyngula post) I am still under the impression that it is retarded. How's that for PC?
Posted by: Alyson Miers | December 8, 2009 9:25 AM
Shorter Charlton:
"REPENT, HEATHEN!" *flounces off*
Posted by: Ted H. | December 8, 2009 9:27 AM
Forgive my ignorance on this but are editorials usually found on PubMed?
I find it interesting that all he takes to task is an accusation of self-publishing, but does not say a thing in an attempt to defend his position.
Posted by: Katharine | December 8, 2009 9:31 AM
Shit, that letter was almost word salad.
Posted by: And-U-Say | December 8, 2009 9:32 AM
If you were Bruce G Charlton, you would be an idiot. But then again, you aren't an idiot, so...
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 8, 2009 9:34 AM
-It strikes me a sleazy and sloppy bit of journalism, unworthy of a scientist, falsely to accuse me in print of corrupt self-publishing.-
Yes, he regularly writes crap that even HE wouldn't publish....SO THERE !!!!
Lets face it here...the self publishing editorials reaaalllly isn't the issue.
The insulting and idiotic prose however...
Posted by: Harry | December 8, 2009 9:36 AM
I have one thing to say: Bruce G. Charlatan.
Posted by: santareindeer386sx | December 8, 2009 9:37 AM
Will the real Bruce G Charlton please stand up and/or identify the slave called Bruce G Charlton.
Posted by: Josh | December 8, 2009 9:37 AM
WTF? With what, seminars such as: On what we think the cranial anatomy of the adult male Atlantian might have been like?
Posted by: Don Smith
|
December 8, 2009 9:38 AM
C'mon PZ, you should know people like this spend most of their time online googling their own name.Posted by: James Sweet | December 8, 2009 9:41 AM
If it were me, I might even issue a guarded, heavily-qualified apology for this one possible inaccuracy. Even if it is true that 100% of his contributions to MH have been of the "Letter from the Editor" format, the guy is still a grade A kook. I say, give him the benefit of the doubt, and apologize for (maybe) mischaracterizing his contributions.
"I apologize for implying that your asinine pseudoscientific ramblings in Medical Hypothesis constituted self-published research papers. I now acknowledge that these asinine pseudoscientific ramblings are merely self-published editorial commentaries."
Posted by: toth
|
December 8, 2009 9:49 AM
I am not going to make a "Charlton-Charlatan" joke. I am not going to make a "Charlton-Charlatan" joke.
I am not going to make a "Charlton-Charlatan" joke.
Fuck, this is hard.
Posted by: Blak Thundar | December 8, 2009 9:49 AM
"I have one thing to say: Bruce G. Charlatan."
Harry, I was thinking the SAME thing!
Posted by: Harry | December 8, 2009 9:51 AM
I've got some theoretical medicine for you, Bruce. Insert gun into mouth...
Posted by: foo.ca
|
December 8, 2009 9:57 AM
This confused me - he would be ashamed of himself if he self-published editorials? He wants to make an apology?
I think he could benefit from an editor.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 8, 2009 10:02 AM
If I were Bruce Charlton, I might be far more concerned with addressing the actual content and point of the post, which calls into question my very credentials, and essentially labels me as a crank, and would be quite careful not to make a big, flouncing scene over the technicalities of his frequency of published editorials, lest he be seen as intentionally distracting from the fact that he has no argument against the inferences that he is loopy as a fruit-bat.
Posted by: artconserv
|
December 8, 2009 10:05 AM
"I think he could benefit from an editor."
LOL!!!
Posted by: TheBrummell | December 8, 2009 10:07 AM
Medical Hypotheses... oh, the memories. I'll just go curl up in the fetal position and rock softly in the corner for a bit now, thanks.
That journal is the publication least deserving of the name. Utter tripe. I'm not at all surprised to discover the editor is a fool.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 8, 2009 10:08 AM
-If I were Bruce Charlton, -
Technically if you were Charlton (not charlatan, not charlatan....arghhh) you would do exactly what you just said he shouldn't. Then we would laugh at you...again.
I expect Charlton to flounce again shortly... possibly demanding a camera.
Posted by: Thomas Winwood
|
December 8, 2009 10:10 AM
Personally, I like the assertion that blogging is journalism.
Posted by: strangest brew | December 8, 2009 10:10 AM
Yep!... 'Gotta keep the looney's on the path!'
Tis but a mystery how these anti 'clever sillies'
actually function in a world that really is devoid of magical woo and supernatural sky fairies.
We could export him to 4X I suppose...somewhere near Uluru would be jolly...(although the Native chappies might petition the UN about the unfair smell)... but we would be forever indebted to the Aussi's for providing a smidgeon of their backyard to incarcerate this butthead.
"Can I introduce 'Bruce' Professor of Theoretical Medicine and is also in chaaaarge of the sheepdip!"
Methinks a squidgy grey splodge of cells somewhere near the cranial cavity of this clown might well implode if ever taken to Disney land!
All that magic and awe would do for the bunny so it would!
That is a fairly sound plan B! in case Qantas has standards after all!
Summat' must be done...tis an intolerable situation!
Posted by: ChrisH
|
December 8, 2009 10:15 AM
So PZ has been promoted to 'journalist'?
Woo! Yay!
Are you allowed to start writing bollocks a la Charlton now?
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | December 8, 2009 10:26 AM
All of his articles are clearly identified as editorials in the journal, but that doesn't change the fact that he is essentially publishing communications-type papers under the guise of editorials, and therefore free from the scrutiny of peer-review. I don't think it would be fair to describe many of the articles as mere editorials, or at least they often vary in style massively from those seen in, for example, Nature.
Notably, he doesn't distinguish the editorials as such on his own website, listing the entire lot under selected publications, and clearly stating that they are single author papers (unless otherwise stated). It is, even if unintentionally, misleading.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 8, 2009 10:30 AM
Harry @23: Seriously? Come on.
Posted by: Yoritomo
|
December 8, 2009 10:34 AM
I'm with James Sweet @20.
Who knows, maybe Prof. Charlton is aware that his diatribe is utter nonsense, but it's the type of nonsense required by the editor of Medical Hypotheses? Besides, in that screed he did seem to imply that religious experiences could be turned on and off via genetics - a clearly atheistic position (though no less nonsense, and I'd consider genetic manipulation to ).
Posted by: eveningperson | December 8, 2009 10:41 AM
University of Buckingham - basically formed as a private school for lawyers and extreme free-market views, it has branched out into medicine. Karol Sikora, who promotes woowoo, is the Dean. Expect the school to promote homeopathy and stuff as a good way of increasing doctors' incomes.
Posted by: Rheinhard | December 8, 2009 10:42 AM
OK, if you weren't already convinced that this guy is just dressing up his personal prejudices in longwinded academic sounding bullshit, check out this passage I skimmed briefly at his blog:
Shorter:
People with leftish views are socially inept losers with no common sense whose ideas will wreck society, as opposed to the well-adapted and common sensical folk with good theistic right-wing views.
Posted by: Freidenker | December 8, 2009 10:45 AM
"Professor of Theoretical Medicine" -
I read that title and couldn't help thinking it's like one of those posts you get at Unseen University in discworld novels. "Lecturer in cruel and egregious geography" springs to mind.
Posted by: Tacroy | December 8, 2009 10:59 AM
You know, I've read that e-mail three times now, and he's not claiming that he doesn't use Medical Hypotheses as a vehicle to self-publish. He's just saying that PZ was nasty for calling him on it.
After all, it's not peer-reviewed; there's absolutely nothing that differentiates his "editorials" from any other paper that shows up in the journal.
Posted by: ChrisH
|
December 8, 2009 11:03 AM
Professor of Hypothetical Medicine seems like a better tag. Or maybe Professor of Pull-it-out-of-your-Arse Medicine, but that's a bit more of a mouth full.
Posted by: No BS | December 8, 2009 11:07 AM
Another candidate for the auto-fellatio awards.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 8, 2009 11:27 AM
Is Theoretical Medicine practiced on a theoretical body?
Posted by: theshortearedowl | December 8, 2009 11:30 AM
He's got a point. Editorials from the editor is fair play, if they're marked as such.
And I was surprised at the disagreement with the idea that spirituality has a biological cause - it comes from humans, humans are biological, right? "Genospirituality" might be simplifying it a bit (do you have the Shaman gene?) but if we can identify areas or processes within the brain associated with spiritual experiences or ascribing unexplained phenomena to supernatural beings, and such things have been observed in all known cultures, then it seems likely there must be some genetic basis to them. The guy may be speculating up the wrong totem pole, but he's not entirely nuts.
Posted by: JD | December 8, 2009 11:30 AM
ha... what a tool...
Posted by: David Estlund | December 8, 2009 11:30 AM
Wow Reinhard,
That's quite a nugget there. "Indeed, I suggest that higher levels of the personality trait of Openness in higher IQ people may the flip-side of this over-use of abstraction." I don't trust people who leave out verbs. This concept of "Openness" is kind of creepy; I wonder if it's anything like Scientology and "clear." He seems to take the view that:
Critical thinking is hard, and usually results in complex solutions.Complex solutions often have unwanted side effects.Therefore, we should avoid critical thought and go with the gut.Reminds me of a certain recent leader of the free world.
Posted by: ProudMonkey | December 8, 2009 11:31 AM
Wow. I sincerely believe that Charlton's "editorial" smacks more of crack-pottery than anything I have ever read. Ever. Really, I thought Ray Comfort was out there, but this guy? Ray is just a harmless idiot, but this guy is clinically insane. My favourite quote (do I have to pick just one?) is the following:
"Over the long-term and from a biological perspective, if a belief is useful then it is not a delusion; if a belief is a delusion then it is not useful."
I'd like to see Charlton read this to himself. Out loud. Utter lunacy. In his editorial he defines delusion as "false but powerful belief held with strong conviction". The germane word here is false. Usefulness has nothing whatsoever to do with trueness/falseness. What his quote above states is that if a belief is useful, it is true. Total nonsense. Things are either true or not true; belief is irrelevant. Following his insane "logic", if a concept is useful to one person and not useful to another person, it is both true and false at the same time!
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | December 8, 2009 11:35 AM
Isn't his whole basic argument a rehash of eugenics?
Posted by: Chris P | December 8, 2009 11:36 AM
I had never heard of this "University" before - I see that it only has 1000 students.
Posted by: David Wiener
|
December 8, 2009 11:50 AM
A little research on the University of Buckingham shows that bible colleges are not the sole province of the USA (thank no god).
Also - Founded in 1976; Accredited in 2004.
See: http://www.4icu.org/reviews/4769.htm
That didn't too long, huh?
Also, according to their own site, their MD degree is only recognized in India.
See: http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/medicine/postgrad/accreditation.html
Is their a tier below 3rd?
Posted by: Pareidolius | December 8, 2009 11:56 AM
Clever Silly. That phrase can only be rightfully used by someone wearing a powdered wig and satin breeches. I envision some period farce . . .
The Scene: France, 1756, Versailles, The Hall of Mirrors.
Peering over his jeweled fan, the Marquis de Flehbleableaux dismissed the findings of the chemists and astronomers gathered for the King's symposium. "Such a rowydow over the nonsenses of science. You know what you are do you not? You are clever sillies, clever, clever sillies! (admires self in mirror and screeches . . .) Gaston! (strikes hapless manservent) My face is shiny! Shiny I say! Powder! Powder now!"
The Marquis rushes off and his coterie of sycophantic climbers, hiding behind their fans, point and whisper, giggling about the "clever sillies" as their high-heels clatter across the intricate parquet floors of the vast Galerie des Glaces.
The scientists engage in a simultaneous, 18th century facepalm.
Posted by: SEF | December 8, 2009 12:04 PM
When he says "Openness", is he actually talking about "honesty" as the thing he dislikes?! Or perhaps it's the need to make data public for the peer review process, or the principles behind open source software projects. Is he a fanatically protectionist secret-ingredient-X kind of guy ...
Meanwhile, I note he shares that tendency of inappropriate capitalisation with the religious nutters. Eg there was one bod who kept going on about "Reason" and "Truth" as distinct from reason and truth. Maybe his "Openness" needs a ™ after it ...
Posted by: Michelle R | December 8, 2009 12:04 PM
...You're a journalist?
Posted by: CanonicalKoi | December 8, 2009 12:21 PM
Dr. Charlton wrote:
"All of my articles published in Medical Hypotheses since I became editor are editorials. Editor publishing editorials - you know the kind of thing?"
You, sir, have an interesting definition of "editorial". Your version seems to most closely resemble an article. I look at the most recent issue of The Lancet and they have three editorials:
HIV/AIDS: a new South Africa takes responsibility
Urgently needed: new antibiotics
Ending intimate partner violence
Let's take a look at a couple of yours (and yes, these are the full titles, not the abstracts; they're longer yet):
July 2009--The Sleep Elaboration–Awake Pruning (SEAP) theory of memory: Long term memories grow in complexity during sleep and undergo selection while awake. Clinical, psychopharmacological and creative implications
August 2009--Sex ratios in the most-selective elite US undergraduate colleges and universities are consistent with the hypothesis that modern educational systems increasingly select for conscientious personality compared with intelligence
January 2009--A model for self-treatment of four sub-types of symptomatic ‘depression’ using non-prescription agents: Neuroticism (anxiety and emotional instability); malaise (fatigue and painful symptoms); demotivation (anhedonia) and seasonal affective disorder ‘SAD’
That's just from this year. It certainly has the appearance of you taking advantage of your position as editor in order to slide articles in under the aegis of "Editorial" while "truthfully" trumpeting that you only publish your editorials.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | December 8, 2009 12:27 PM
What PZ said:
"Charlton is not only the editor of Medical Hypotheses, he's a frequent contributor (which makes one wonder…since the journal has no peer review, and the only gatekeeper is the editor, Bruce G Charlton, has Dr Charlton ever received a rejection from the journal?)."
What Charlton claims PZ did: "falsely to accuse me in print of corrupt self-publishing"
I gather that the phrase "self-publishing" has some specific meaning in the academic community; otherwise I don't see what the problem would be even if PZ had used that phrase. Printing your own "editorials" seems like "self-publishing" to me.
And "corrupt" is entirely an invention of Charlton's. Guilty conscience, perhaps? Maybe he needs to modulate his shamanistic consciousness?
Posted by: middlekk | December 8, 2009 12:28 PM
I can only sigh with relief that this person is safely ensconced in a job where he doesn't directly impact patient health or well-being.
I think every crackpot should have a similar job, funded by the government. The quality of healthcare would go up, the cost would go down, and the crackpots would be safely sequestered.
I think I just solved the healthcare "crisis".
Posted by: RaspK | December 8, 2009 12:33 PM
His fallacious tirade was particularly dissected in RDF, actually; it is a really interesting bit for any sort of critique, because you really see various errors spread throughout the whole text.
The most amazing bit, however, is how he went on and on, trying to prove that atheism is delusive according to the notion that it is a harmful and erroneous belief... and never truly showed that.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 8, 2009 12:35 PM
We're here, we're queer, get used to it. =8-)
Professor of Ectoproctal Medicine...?
As I just wrote on the other thread, I'm not aware of any journal that contains editorials at all, except for Nature, Science, and the occasional special issue of journals that otherwise lack editorials. Also, see comment 32.
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Posted by: Jarred C.
|
December 8, 2009 1:14 PM
I checked out a few random publications of Medical Hypothesis:
Vol 70, Issue 2 (2008): Editorials run from pg 215 - 453; Correspondence runs from 454-563. This journal is primarily editorials.
Vol 60, Issue 3 (2003): Sections are not labeled, I presume they're all considered journal articles by the journal.
I found this interesting, so I decided to see where the demarcation line was:
Vol 65, issue 5 (2005) has no labeling of sections; however, vol 65, issue 6 (2005) starts the whole labeling of sections, where the entire journal is considered an editorial (pg 1005 - 1195 out of 1208 total).
This must be where Charlton took over the editor position. Anyone want to confirm that?
Also interesting that Charlton considers the majority of the articles in his publication to be editorials (are all of the contributors to MH editors?). Are some of them letters to the editor? Are they considered some other category? Charlton doesn't specify in his journal.
Posted by: PlaydoPlato | December 8, 2009 1:15 PM
Pareidolius at #49. Damn. You need to flesh that out into a screenplay. I can practically here the clatter of their high heels on the polished floor. Hilarious!
Just one thing. You forgot to mention the massive fake mole that these dandies like to paint onto their silly powdered faces.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | December 8, 2009 1:21 PM
Wow, with witty lines like "If you were me... but you're not me," I'm sure his editorials are a well-crafted delight to read.
Posted by: Harry | December 8, 2009 1:24 PM
@#33 Ray: I guess that didn't turn out as funny as I'd hoped. The attempted joke had something to do with a doctor prescribing some sort of theoretical medicine.
Posted by: Carl | December 8, 2009 1:46 PM
Strange. I don't care what Charlton thinks.
Posted by: strangest brew | December 8, 2009 1:53 PM
So let us have a roll call...
Hates Openess...far to honest in calling bovine excrement.....bovine excrement!
Likes fluffy woo...
Thinks genetics is the saviour of religious nincompoops.
Possibly considers genetic manipulation as a way to 'cure' atheism.
Cannot decide if he is a journalist a blogger a editor a contributor a publisher or an article scribbler.
Inhabits a University where certain degrees are only recognised in India...hmmm!
toughie!
Brucie baby...you are an enigma wrapped in a paradox!
Posted by: WRMartin | December 8, 2009 2:07 PM
Ci = Oy * Ry
Where:
Ci = how much I care
Oy = your opinion
Ry = my respect for you
In this situation, for Bruce G. Charlton, Ry = 0.
(Pareidolius @49 is way funnier.)
Posted by: Rorschach | December 8, 2009 2:18 PM
Pray tell, what does a reader in evolutionary psychiatry read, or do ? And what is it?
Posted by: Nanahuatzin | December 8, 2009 2:41 PM
What does a "Reader in Evolutionary Psychiatry" do?..
looking in goggle, seems he is the only one using that title?...
Posted by: Michael Fugate | December 8, 2009 3:00 PM
Check out the founder of Medical Hypotheses, David Horrobin, on wikipedia.
Posted by: Leon | December 8, 2009 3:12 PM
The gall and irony of the crackpots never ceases to amaze me. His "hypothesis" begins by accusing science of dishonesty, and then takes offense when someone criticizes him. Typical.
Posted by: Paul W. | December 8, 2009 3:26 PM
Nanahuatzin:
Reader:
If this guy really is a reader in psychiatry---more or less like an associate professor in the U.S., i.e., tenured, I think---something is very seriously wrong.
And the "evolutionary" part is even more ridiculous.
See the thorough spanking we're giving him about brains and evolution and religion in the "Genospirituality"? Srsly thread:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/genosprituality_srsly.php#comments
The guy is clearly either completely ignorant of the live scientific theories in the field, or willfully ignoring them, and failing to address the main issues. (Which is maybe even worse.) He's a kook.
Posted by: Rick R | December 8, 2009 3:31 PM
Pareidolius at #49- Hilarious!
All it needs is Harvey Korman in a powdered wig exclaiming "Don't be so saucy, Bernaise!"
Posted by: Paul W. | December 8, 2009 3:36 PM
Check out Medical Hypotheses on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Hypotheses
Holy crap---does Antonio Damasio know they list him as a board member?!
I find it inconceivable that he'd knowingly be associated with anything that would publish the utterly bogus* "Genospirituality" article.
*bogus at the very least in the American sense, and likely in the British sense too.
Posted by: MadScientist | December 8, 2009 3:44 PM
What the hell is "theoretical medicine" anyway? What's next? "nanomedicine"?
Medicine simply isn't theoretical; there are many theoretical bases behind the development of anti-viral drugs vs. antibiotics, vs. cancer drugs, but the people who develop all that stuff are the very people who work on drugs and I've never met any with a delusion that it is worthwhile to only study the theories.
Oh, I see, he's not even talking about *real* medicine. He just wants to give his bullshit a name with "theoretical" and "medicine" in it.
Posted by: Paul W. | December 8, 2009 3:50 PM
MadScientist,
Yeah, I suppose that there is a theoretical sense in which you could call that "medicine."
It's pretty much the sense that came up in the Dover trial, in which you could call astrology "science."
Posted by: Pareidolius | December 8, 2009 3:53 PM
@58
A heart shaped mole at that . . .
Posted by: Paul W. | December 8, 2009 4:03 PM
ChrisH:
Them's fighting words, Chris H.
Chris M. is a journalist, so I'm pretty sure PZ is something else.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 8, 2009 4:14 PM
OT (except for chastisement theme):
The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission has an online poll whereby to determine the Top Ten most egregious acts of anti-Christian bigotry in the United States in 2009.
Xtra fun: that second link shows a list of other stories, including one about Dr. Stephen C. Meyer of the Disco 'Tute receiving World Magazine's coveted Daniel of the Year Award ("Scientist Courageously Stands by Intelligent Design"). You do have to register to submit comments, alas...
Posted by: Paul W. | December 8, 2009 4:42 PM
Daniel of the Year
Straight from the lyin's den.
Posted by: shonny
|
December 8, 2009 4:47 PM
Wasn't aware that UK universities hired village idiots, but it is all there: http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/publicity/dofe/charlton.html
But then again, it is a private university, bit like Bond University in Qld, Australia, i.e. a mickey-mouse outfits for those high on money and low on intelligence who'd never make it to a proper university?
Posted by: Acronym Jim | December 8, 2009 4:47 PM
Are we certain this wasn't a typo? Perhaps it's supposed to be "Professor of Theatrical Medicine." You know, medicine that relies heavily on props, staging, clever prose and suspension of disbelief.
Posted by: DaveW | December 8, 2009 5:57 PM
For some reason I first read Genospirituality as Gynospirituality.
Imagine my disapointment.
Posted by: bonze blayk
|
December 8, 2009 6:02 PM
It's an old title.
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 8, 2009 6:20 PM
@shonny #77,
Er, your exuberance is commendable, but I think you're getting carried away. "Private" does not mean "Mickey Mouse".
As a teaching institution, The University of Bucks is perfectly respectable.
Posted by: VegeBrain | December 8, 2009 6:29 PM
Let me see if I have this correct. Bruce G. Charlton does a bunch of sleazy and corrupt journalism, PZ Meyers calls him on it, and then Charlton isn't happy about it? Well, when the little kid pointed out that the emperor's wang was waggling in the wind the emperor didn't like the little kid either.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
December 8, 2009 6:31 PM
No, bonze, theoretical medicine is "I think you've got a broken ankle and I think this is how to fix it, I think."
Posted by: bonze blayk
|
December 8, 2009 8:10 PM
'Tis Himself #83
Spoken like a true... economist.
Posted by: herr doktor bimler | December 8, 2009 10:23 PM
This concept of "Openness" is kind of creepy
It's one of the "Big Five" higher-order factors that were dreamed up in the factor-factor school of personality psychology, as supposedly the best framework for quantifying an individual's personality. Big-Five theorising is the contemporary version of phrenology but I'm biassed.
Comment #52 cites Charlton as talking about Neuroticism and "conscientious personality" -- two more of the B5 -- so evidently he's gone a fair bit of the way down that particular rabbit-hole.
Posted by: herr doktor bimler | December 8, 2009 10:32 PM
As someone mentioned on an earlier thread, Ben Goldacre and "Bad Science" have had a number of run-ins with "Medical Hypotheses", must recently over the editor's decision to run a piece of AIDS-denialism.
According to the Wikipedia article on MedHyp, Charlton is only its second editor. The first was its founder, an evening-primrose snake-oil salesman who started it off to give himself the credibility and the list of publications that he couldn't get from the medical establishment.
Posted by: Blair | December 8, 2009 11:23 PM
"But if Bruce G Charlton were PZ Myers, he'd be rude and scathing and cruel, and would feel no need to apologize for publicizing the follies of a Clever Silly.
And if PZ Myers were Bruce G Charlton…oh, bleh. I don't even want to think about it."
That reminds me of this -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII6-IyaT3o
Posted by: tif | December 9, 2009 7:01 AM
This Charlton guy often post here at scienceblogs under the monicker "bgc"; however it's mostly in Razib's neck of the woods.