Discussion about this post

User's avatar
MRTYCT007's avatar

The 11th commandment -

Thou shall not thinketh for thy self.

Clark Baker's avatar

Happy 250th Birthday, Rebecca! What you describe in that first chapter — where he reproduces your failed-predictions list, relabels your analysis "Denialist Myth," and then either answers with a vague non-statement or quietly rewrites your point before debunking the rewrite — is the whole method in one specimen. He doesn't refute the argument. He relocates it under a heading that has already decided it's pathology, and answers the version he edited.

I just posted a piece on exactly this ("The Costume of Science"). The short version: what Kalichman does isn't diagnosis, it's profiling. A real diagnosis rules out the ordinary explanation before it commits — here, the ordinary explanation being that the person looked at the evidence and found it wanting. He skips that step every time. Your chapter-one experience is that skip, documented against a named person who can testify to what her own words actually said.

Grateful you reposted this ahead of the 2026 edition. The book is about to be handed to a post-COVID audience, and the method deserves to be understood before it is. https://rkoch.substack.com/p/the-costume-of-science

2 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?