As someone outside the scientific-academic community, I find his posts very accessible for learning news/issues about studies. I greatly appreciate his passion in trying to stop junk science from reaching the media. Maybe his rhetoric is too brash and coarse for the respectful standards of scientific discourse, but it's as harsh as it needs to be for scolding media outlets for running with junk science:

http://andrewgelman.com/2016/05/05/npr-bites/

http://andrewgelman.com/2016/11/03/its-not-about-reality-its...

> ...and isn't an asshole...

I just read his blog for the first time and thought he’s a huge asshole. It seems to me the primary effect of science-shaming on the blog is to rally the pitchforks, something he can’t possibly be ignorant of. But he apparently keeps on doing it. No doubt it’s good for the hits, but doesn’t contribute to a dynamic that leads to good science. Oh wells.

I don't know. A lot of the people Gelman complains about are, in my opinion, building their career on fraudulent work. They are undermining science. If there was ever any doubt that they were deliberately deceiving people, that doubt disappeared upon seeing their response to simple and legitimate criticism.

A little needling on Gelman's blog is not too harsh, all things considered.

Out of curiosity, what did you read?

If you read the article, you'd identify him as a huge asshole.

Could you be more specific about which details give you this impression, and what you mean by it? I haven't interacted with Gelman personally, but having read both the NYT article and his response to it (as well as reading his blog and regularly his papers occasionally) I see him as someone who cares about "the truth" more than social niceties, but not as someone who gets any joy out of causing harm to others (which would be my definition of a "huge asshole").