Richard Tol posted a comment yesterday which was beyond amazing:
Brandon: I’m not gonna go over this again. I thought for a bit that Izuru was someone else. Anyway, the onus is on you to show that a random reordering of a random draw should show a pattern.
This, of course, was in reference to the post I made about his criticisms of the Cook et al paper. Basically, he criticized that paper by saying he found patterns in its data, and that indicates a problem. This is based on the idea a "random reordering of a random draw should" not show a pattern. He freely admits a non-random reordering, that is a sorted draw, can be expected to show a pattern:
That means his criticism rests entirely upon the idea the data he looked at was non-sorted, an idea he himself has shown is false by saying:
On homoskedasticity, the Web of Science presents data in an order that is independent of its contents, namely the date of publication. Cook then randomized the order again, but presents data in the original order.
It turns out his description wasn't accurate. The data is actually sorted by publication year (not date) and then alphabetical order. Still, this shows Tol was perfectly aware the data was sorted. One would think he'd thus be aware we should be able to expect patterns in it. Instead, he insists we shouldn't.
How does he do it? I don't know. I may have a bit of a hint though. I expressed my disbelief about this on Twitter, and during one exchange I got this response:
The person who made it, Shub Niggurath, claimed sorting papers by year published then alphabetical order is performing a random reordering. It seems that must be Richard Tol's view as well. He must somehow feel sorting data is randomly reordering it.
I'd say that's pretty amazing.