Is most published research wrong?

[Deleted]

It would seem that most studies and most published research is, basically, bullshit. This is, of course, no news to any of us who have known that trusting studies, especially studies without confirming studies to back them up, has been asinine for a long time now, but here's a comprehensive video by a very well regarded Youtube poster Veritasium giving you the facts:



Now, after you've listened to the case being made by Veritasium, what do you think? Can you still trust studies?

Next time, please explain what is going on in a video if you are creating a thread (if the video is not meant as video graphical evidence of something)

Is this better?

[Independent voter]

I saw some published research that said STEM people went over some studies done by psychologists and social scientists and found that the results of over half of those studies couldn't be replicated.

[Sunseeker]

I'm not really up for watching the video atm, is there any particularly strong evidence he gives for his position? People being paid off? Study bias? Poor variable control? There are a LOT of studies out there and there are a lot of "studies" out there that are absolutely garbage. Discerning between them can sometimes be obvious, such as noting a small sample bias or poorly controlled variables, loaded questions, etc... but there's a big difference between a "study" and published research, so, in lieu of watching a 12-minute video, could someone perhaps summarize his reasoning?

[Deleted]

I'm not really up for watching the video atm, is there any particularly strong evidence he gives for his position? People being paid off? Study bias? Poor variable control? There are a LOT of studies out there and there are a lot of "studies" out there that are absolutely garbage. Discerning between them can sometimes be obvious, such as noting a small sample bias or poorly controlled variables, loaded questions, etc... but there's a big difference between a "study" and published research, so, in lieu of watching a 12-minute video, could someone perhaps summarize his reasoning?

The guy is well known for being very scientific and doing his research, and he condenses it into a 12 minute video, and you want that summarized as well? Perhaps you're not up to the task of tackling this issue?

- - - Updated - - -

Here's 8 minutes of post-apocalyptic Chernobyl video by Veritasium, that also can't be summarized, but that someone might enjoy, and perhaps then they might be able to watch the video in the OP;

[Sunseeker]

The guy is well known for being very scientific and doing his research, and he condenses it into a 12 minute video, and you want that summarized as well? Perhaps you're not up to the task of tackling this issue?

Insults aside, I'm not tackling anything, and yes, I'm asking if someone could summarize his points. If you don't want to do that, you're not obligated to do so. If noone wants to do that, that's fine too. That was probably going to be my only comment until someone actually summarized the points, or I got some rest and watched the video.

[Eviscero]

You cite Youtube to try and discredit 'scientific studies'... Not to be rude, but you clearly don't know enough to even know the difference, and it's debilitating. You know just enough to be dangerous and should go back to school and get an advanced degree if you want to be able to participate in a meaningful conversation about academia and any shortcomings of the peer review process.

"Well known for being very scientific"

It's frustrating to me that can't appreciate how stupid that sounds to anyone with an advanced degree.

[Jtbrig7390]

This is well worth watching

[Xar226]

Possibly. There is a very real problem in science in that not enough funding is devoted to verification of previous studies, which is one of the hallmarks of good science. It's just not "sexy" enough and it's not exciting in a press release, so nobody wants to fund it. There's also a very real problem of science-illiterate or... shall we say, overzealous science reporters reporting things that studies don't actually support.

I think John Oliver did a bit about it at one point. (Edit: Yup, in post above!)

[Deleted]

Insults aside, I'm not tackling anything, and yes, I'm asking if someone could summarize his points. If you don't want to do that, you're not obligated to do so. If noone wants to do that, that's fine too. That was probably going to be my only comment until someone actually summarized the points, or I got some rest and watched the video.

Fair enough. Get some rest now and close the forums. I hope you get better.

[Coolioe]

I saw some published research that said STEM people went over some studies done by psychologists and social scientists and found that the results of over half of those studies couldn't be replicated.

It's a problem in hard sciences too. There were two phd students in france who wrote about some physic phenomenon that turned out to be complete bullshit, the journal they submitted it to for peer review just didnt end up reviewing it or something like that. A pretty substantial amount of medical studies are also unable to be replicated.

[Deleted]

It would seem that most studies and most published research is, basically, bullshit. This is, of course, no news to any of us who have known that trusting studies, especially studies without confirming studies to back them up, has been asinine for a long time now, but here's a comprehensive video by a very well regarded Youtube poster Veritasium giving you the facts:



Now, after you've listened to the case being made by Veritasium, what do you think? Can you still trust studies?



Is this better?

I think it's sad that people like you see stuff like this. You see something like this and instantly you will choose to believe only that science which you feel like agreeing with. And the saddest thing is, you will think you are doing the right thing.

[Deleted]

You cite Youtube

No, I linked to Veritasium.

Not to be rude, but you clearly don't know enough to even know the difference

You're not being rude. You're being misguided and stupid.

You know just enough to be dangerous and should go back to school and get an advanced degree if you want to be able to participate in a meaningful conversation about academia and any shortcomings of the peer review process.

Said who, exactly?

"Well known for being very scientific"

It's frustrating to me that can't appreciate how stupid that sounds to anyone with an advanced degree.

What exactly is your "advanced degree", again?

I think it's sad that people like you see stuff like this. You see something like this and instantly you will choose to believe only that science which you feel like agreeing with. And the saddest thing is, you will think you are doing the right thing.

As opposed to the "sad" of seeing a study and immediately taking it as truth?



Infracted for flaming.

[Milchshake]

Insults aside, I'm not tackling anything, and yes, I'm asking if someone could summarize his points. If you don't want to do that, you're not obligated to do so. If noone wants to do that, that's fine too. That was probably going to be my only comment until someone actually summarized the points, or I got some rest and watched the video.

I'll summarize for you;
Some youtuber cherry-picks one or maybe two studies, and then generalizes that a majority of research is wrong.
Some edgelords look past his amazing lack of methodology so they can proclaim how edgy they are.

I didn't watch the video, but I did read a study about how people can profit off of youtube and patreon.

[Deleted]

I didn't watch the video, but

But you're qualified to talk about what he's making a video about?

[Milchshake]

But you're qualified to talk about what he's making a video about?

Yet I wasn't wrong. Spoiler... It's not because I'm psychic.

[Eviscero]

No, I linked to Veritasium.



You're not being rude. You're being misguided and stupid.



Said who, exactly?



What exactly is your "advanced degree", again?

Said me, a PhD. Unlike you and this know-nothing youtuber, I actually have both published and reviewed scientific work. Here's the difference:
To blindly believe published results just because they're in a peer reviewed journal is a mistake. But, to believe some unpublished, uneducated, youtuber because he validates your beliefs about the educated elite is utterly asinine and dangerous.

[Deleted]

Yet I wasn't wrong. Spoiler... It's not because I'm psychic.

You wouldn't even know if you were wrong.

Said me, a PhD. Unlike you and this know-nothing youtuber, I actually have both published and reviewed scientific work. Here's the difference:
To blindly believe published results just because they're in a peer reviewed journal is a mistake. But, to believe some unpublished, uneducated, youtuber because he validates your beliefs about the educated elite is utterly asinine and dangerous.

You're as much a PhD as I am. Saying that means nothing. And, even if you were, it wouldn't mean anything. That you've "published" something doesn't mean you're not corrupt yourself. Or, not corrupt, but just bad at what you do.

[Skroe]

I'm not really up for watching the video atm, is there any particularly strong evidence he gives for his position? People being paid off? Study bias? Poor variable control? There are a LOT of studies out there and there are a lot of "studies" out there that are absolutely garbage. Discerning between them can sometimes be obvious, such as noting a small sample bias or poorly controlled variables, loaded questions, etc... but there's a big difference between a "study" and published research, so, in lieu of watching a 12-minute video, could someone perhaps summarize his reasoning?

Oh this crap again.

There was a paper written a decade ago that was rather narrow in scope. And there has been considerable follow up since then, e.g.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0227105745.htm

However, this being the internet, filled with people, and people generally speaking no smarter than your average zebra, we have had to witness a good decade of a bunch of non-scientists and people who couldn't hack it in scientists circulate that damn paper and opine / generalize on it's conclusions.

The problem is not with Dr. Ioannidis. In fact, he is rather embarrassed about how the paper has been received and taken as gospel. It's become in a way, an ironic fulfillment of what he was talking about.

Furthermore his paper was specifically talking about medical science. Big research trials take years to stage, and can cost millions (or even billions) of dollars. Replication due to financial constraints is a real issue. But medical science is kind of the exception, because we're are (understandably) cautious about putting chemical compounds into human beings. Most science does not cost anywhere close to what medical research costs, bringing down the threshold for verification considerably. And even science that is MORE expensive than any medical research, such as the Large Hadron Collider / Hunt for the Higgs Boson, has conditions set up that by definition confirm the validity of the theory if certain conditions were met. With respect to the Higgs Boson, it was two independently designed detectors / experiments.

SO why the enduring popularity of this paper? Let's go back to the Zebras. Most people can't make heads or tails of a scientific paper. Hell most scientists can't make heads or tails of scientific papers outside of their specialty. The implication that "all science is wrong" rubs the same part of the human ego that conspiracy theories and "everything you know is wrong" do. It democratizes understanding. It allows people who couldn't hack it in Comp Sci 101, failed out of Organic Chemistry, or stopped Math after Linear Algebra NOT feel like there are whole worlds of knowledge that are beyond them. Small wonder climate denying and vaccine-disparaging cranks have spent the better part of a decade feasting on this paper, much to Dr. Ioannidis disgust.

Well truth hurts kids. Nobody can possibly understand everything. Human beings don't live that long. As my Theoretical CS professor back in college said, our brains evolved for the purpose hunting gazelles on the savanah and evading lions... everything we do above that is abstraction and prioritization. I'm sure back in High School I could tell you everything about DNA and RNA replication by heart, but then at the time, I also could write Poetry, spoke Spanish and read Latin. Now... *poof*... *deleted*.... had to make room for relevant-to-my-life computer sciency stuff years ago. There will always be vastly more than we don't know than we know and we have to prioritize the meaningful over the insignificant. And that's wonderful. I wouldn't EXPECT a real estate agent or something to know how to write a sorting algorithm. But they also shouldn't seriously have an opinion of one versus the another.

Instead of going to lame science popularizier channels, which is nothing but junk food for the quasi-intellectual, everyone should do themselves a favor and go to Khan Academy and learn some basic programming or physics or something. Or better yet, statistics. Even if you took it years ago. That's worth your time tenfold over having some non-scientist putz tell you that "everything we know is wrong", which isn't remotely true at all, or even implied in the paper being discussed.

[Eviscero]

You wouldn't even know if you were wrong.

- - - Updated - - -



You're as much a PhD as I am. Saying that means nothing.

Not everyone has your mentality and needs to make shit up to look cool online. I actually do have a PhD. Whether you believe it or not changes literally nothing because even if you did recognize that I am your intellectual superior, you are so clearly biased against the well educated you'd somehow twist this interaction to support your preexisting, pathetic, and provably false belief that your opinions are somehow as valid as observations supported by scientific evidence.

Go read even one of the papers listed in this video, then go read every paper it cites, then read the relevant papers those papers cite. Then challenge some of the conclusions with tests of your own. Then come back and I might take you seriously. Till then, shut the fuck up about that which you know nothing.

[Deleted]

Not everyone has your mentality and needs to make shit up to look cool online. I actually do have a PhD. Whether you believe it or not changes literally nothing because even if you did recognize that I am your intellectual superior, you are so clearly biased against the well educated you'd somehow twist this interaction to support your preexisting, pathetic, and provably false belief that your opinions are somehow as valid as observations supported by scientific evidence.

Go read even one of the papers listed in this video, then go read every paper it cites, then read the relevant papers those papers cite. Then challenge some of the conclusions with tests of your own. Then come back and I might take you seriously. Till then, shut the fuck up about that which you know nothing.

Again, you have no PhD. Saying words doesn't change it. You're the intellectual superior of nobody.