A catch to Andrew Gelman for correcting an attempted but inaccurate catch by Alfred Moore, Joseph Parent and Joseph Uscinski, who thought they had caught Paul Krugman in an error on the always-fun topic of conspiracy theories. Not so!I cut and paste from Gelman
More particularly, Moore et al. criticize liberal pundit Paul Krugman for writing, “Unlike the crazy conspiracy theories of the left — which do exist, but are supported only by a tiny fringe — the crazy conspiracy theories of the right are supported by important people: powerful politicians, television personalities with large audiences.” They respond, “Krugman is mostly wrong that nuttiness is found mainly among conservatives.” But that’s not what Krugman wrote!This shows, among other things, the power of Krugman derangement syndrome -- people often right that his claim is refuted because of a fact noted in the criticized post. I think there is a simple solution to the Moore et al etc problem. I think there should be an editorial rule that if one criticizes another for exaggerating (say Al Gore inventing the internet) oversimplifying or omitting inconvenient facts, then one is not allowed to paraphrase. If Moore et al had been required to use only direct quotes of Krugman, their elision of his statement of exactly the fact which they claim contradicted his statement would have been obvious. What's the problem even with the stronger rule that one must quote directly and only quote directly when one criticizes ? Would we run out of pixels ? I think the rule should be cut and paste and if you insist elide but don't ever paraphrase when criticizing. This is now the editorial policy of this blog (catch me in comments and you will get the fame that comes when your comment is pulled back to the main window of a 50 hits a day blog). I also wrote a comment which notes that we will obtain objectivity no sooner than nirvana, immortality and a pony. My comment. Excellent post. I noticed something funny -- the figure from Kahan Peters et al (2012) doesn't illustrate your point well at all. You write "the research of Dan Kahan finding that roughly equal proportions of political liberals and conservatives in the United States engaged in irrational or “motivated” reasoning" but there is no evidence related to that issue in the figure.