Mounting evidence suggests a lot of published research is false.
Check out Audible: http://bit.ly/AudibleVe
Support Veritasium on Patreon: http://bit.ly/VePatreon
Bryan Baker, Donal Botkin, Tony Fadell, Jason Buster, Saeed Alghamdi
More information on this topic: http://wke.lt/w/s/z0wmO
The Preregistration Challenge: https://cos.io/prereg/
Resources used in the making of this video:
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False:
Trouble at the Lab:
Science isn't broken:
Visual effects by Gustavo Rosa
Every scientist and every student in the world needs to watch this video!!!
Actually.... EVERYONE in the whole world needs to watch this! There's just so many mainstream scientific beliefs that are based on the founding of old science and misunderstandings. Brainwashed from influential and prominent figures of the past who would turn in their graves if they knew their teaching had become taught as fact.
Science needs to keep challenging the "Facts" Lets face it, once upon a time mainstream science laughed at anyone who thought that the earth wasn't flat! GREAT video mate, love your honesty and determination to find truth not just the trendy.
Most good social scientists I know tend to take all regression style studies with a grain of salt. They might repeat a significant result found by others or themselves, in the cinema of academia. But they would not expect it to be true. Or useful. Its truer than an assertion made in a bar, but less true than something you see directly. The video does not talk about social science experiments...the next great frontier in getting “truer” results....
My statistics professor pointed out a simple thing about studies: if you don't get the result you want, just throw it out and run it again. Statistically speaking, if it's at all possible, it WILL happen eventually. It makes it nice to stick out a really crazy idea and have results to back it up. The fact that it can't be replicated doesn't matter, it's already become a headline in the media and a fact.
Here is a question, why do you assume that most published articles support agw, when IF you look at a specific science's peer reviewed magazines, they do not. For instance, glaciology peer review will talk about glaciers melting off centuries before co2 skyrocketed. yet those articles are counted as supporting agw because they do not say that its not man made.
IF you look in geology peer review magazines you will not see anything about co2 causing climate change. You will see articles discussing it but none of them say that there is any connection.
none of the articles about geology, glaciology, marine biology or others that support agw are in the fields own peer review magazines. Why is that?
This is a fine criticism of published research as a whole, but it completely unfair to research that has rigorous standards behind it. Double-blind placebo controlled studies do not from many of these shortcomings. It is important to read and understand the procedural methods used during studies. But it is incorrect to say that just because some research is done poorly that it all is.
+American Citizen And I was pointing out the stupidity of using hypocrisy as the basis of your belief, in case you missed that. You're a moron. Not because you don't believe in global warming, but because you have no ability to form well-reasoned thoughts, and because you still haven't backed up your original claim that I've repeatedly tried to get you to support. Additionally, you are making claims that I'm part of the problem, whatever that means in your head (since you apparently don't believe there's a problem to begin with), without knowing literally anything about my lifestyle.
For good measure, I notice you're a Republican. Cool. So am I. That gives me an opportunity to point out I'm not huge on regulatory legislation, and that there are other things that can be done to improve the issues surrounding climate change. For instance, let's get rid of subsidies going to coal plants. Things like mandatory low-cost leasing, and tax breaks. Let the free market take over; coal power costs go up, making renewables even more competitive than they already are, renewables are further implemented driving their costs down, etc.
+Lizz Wellne - But tens of millions of years in the past the warming did not kill off all life on Earth. In fact, life thrived. I really don't care if it is the sun or something man is doing. It is NOT the end of the world. Life adapts to climate changes. And we will too. There -- now you don't have to cry yourself to sleep anymore. Everything will be OK. You don't have to worry about the big, bad Republicans and the sky falling...
+Joel Henderson - I was giving an another example of hypocrisy, in case you missed that. If you are contributing to the problem (and YOU ARE) then you are the problem. And so is Al Gore. And Obama. And the climate scientists who fly around on jet planes.
+American Citizen Just to make sure you get it, since you ignored important questions previously:
"It's a bit like forming an organization to fight domestic abuse while you are still beating your wife at home." And what you're doing is saying "Look, the dude in charge of that charity beats his wife, so why can't I?"
+American Citizen Are you trolling? You're not even making sense at this point. If you can't make a halfway decent argument, then we're done here.
"It's a bit like forming an organization to fight domestic abuse while you are still beating your wife at home." And what you're doing is saying "Look, the dude in charge of that charity beats his wife, so why can't I?"
Long complicated unnecessary explanation predicated on a falsehood. At the start of your argument you characterized the statistical analysis of the results of an a scientific experiment as the prime measure as to if the conclusions of an experiment is truth or falsehood.
In fact, statistical analysis simply tells you how large the margin of change in the experimental sample actually is. If the materials or methods are flawed statistical analysis will not tell you anything valuable, this is why the peer review process is so important.
Laypersons these days have been told to look for statistically significant figures in study result, this is important because if the study simply points to a positive result in the analysis and claims victory, yet they have not done a statistical analysis to determine the actual size or significance of the figures then the study is truly not even worth reading, that is for the layperson, it would have value for scientists who want to duplicate the study and see if they replicate the results. Then the sophistication of the analysis is up to the researcher.
When I left school, there was over five thousand biological journal in publishication. The number has gone up since than. When you say, Inspite of the mistakes, it's still the best method we have. Most of the research being done is so esoteric, only few people can understand the the subject. An expert in one field, is mystified by the work in another's field that is almost the same. The problem is when you ask, "Most Pubished Research is Wrong?" you lend fuel to fire where people who barely finished highschool are running for the school board because they know the world is flat.
As a molecular biologist I can ASSURE you. 100%. Psychology, sociology etc are NOT SCIENCE. They are interesting academic pursuits but their findings should not be taken as proof or evidence of some truth. In fact, these are the pseudo-sciences. They are vehicles for political fiction and subversion and social engineering.
My favourite experiments are from the US army, before 1990.
Huge sample size and the only goal is efficiency, no corporate interest, no scentist ego.
Sadly they can't test everything and I couldn't trust them nowadays.
I believe in scientific research as the key for the future of humanity - for reducing suffering and bettering the world past present and future. I long wanted to become a scientist. But during my undergrad studies I decided to instead focus on engineering instead of science in part for this reason. There are too many issues with scientific research currently for me personally to want to devote my life to it. I believe that engineering and science need each other, and that engineering needs more help right now than science does. We can do so much with better engineering of the scientific knowledge that we already have.
Not that Elon Musk is the person of truth but he agrees with that perspective and has devoted his life to engineering solutions.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Here's the simple solution. Never expect things to get settled in a single set of studies, and never trust anything that hasn't received at least 10 years of scrutiny.
Believe it or not, this solves all of the above problems. It isn't sexy, but works.
0:11 if it is by just the title "retroactive influence" on cognition and affect; doesn't that imply not a reading of the future but a interpretation of the present based retroactive interpretation of the past? in other words a change of mind?
Very interesting video, thank U x posting. One note of caution if I may: in the field of medicine P-hacking, publication bias etc are so serious that > 50% of publications are rubbish. Furthermore, > 99% of doctors can't reason statistically, they don't have any clue, scary but painfully true (my word as an insider).
To be blunt, the modern feel good, egalitarian idea that anyone can become a "scientist" just by doing a degree in some science is at fault here. The fact is all real discoveries and things of use come from geniuses, and there aren't that many in the world. Everyone else pretending to be scientists just do busy work and at best, help accelerate the work of the few dozen real geniuses in the world.
yes, there is a huge incentive to publish at least wrong (biased) results. Both schools/research institutions and journals, however, are to blame as well. On the one side, those who hire the researchers will use academic productivity (i.e., publications) to determine salaries, titles, etc. On the other side, journals often do not publish no significant results, nor replication studies despite the fact that they are science too!! Left aside that some social "scientists" are eager to back up their opinions and some journals work more as think tanks rather than science.
I know most published health research is false because they keep saying conflicting things. Salt is bad, eggs are bad, take in less calories and you'll be skinny, fat is bad, alcohol is good and then it's bad again. I think this applies to most fields.It's mostly a bunch of BS!
I'm not saying YOU are saying that. I am saying past health science has said that.
I don't agree that MOST published research is wrong but if we just look at history, we can see that a great deal of it is. Especially in the health and food areas. Take a look at the FDA, they're all kinds of wrong!
+Underdrummer Wait, what? I never said anything about high protein and low carbs, and I didn't say the part about 'fat is not bad' is part of "the basics of dietary advice." I stand by what I actually referred to as basic dietary advice. The High protein low carb thing has been a persistent fad, mainly, where publicizers of science overcompensated for the fact that most Americans eat way too much refined carbs.
As for the low fat craze, yeah it went overboard. I don't deny that science can get things wrong. But generally you're best off making decisions with the evidence you do have. And while the advice on fats has changed greatly, it hasn't done a 180, nor do I expect it to. Saturated fats, while certainly not the great evil they were once made out to be, are still shown to be a generally poor choice compared to other options. Fats in general don't need to make up a huge part of your diet, either.
A big part of the problem you're seeing, though, is about the limits of statistical analysis and correlative studies. There is a lot of individual variance in response to dietary choices: when you were talking about salt and cholesterol, most of us are fine with moderate amounts, and a few seem to handle ridiculous quantities. But there are people who have large responses to relatively small doses, and they skew the risk upward. Which isn't the study being wrong, but rather presenting an incomplete picture.
All that has been making people unhealthy for years. That's my point. High protein and low carbs. Healthy carbohydrates like vegetables and fruit is the way to go.
Fat is not bad yet "the basics of dietary advice", as you put it, say it is. Remember the "low fat" craze of the late 80's? That's what science was telling consumers and they were WRONG.
Science gets things wrong all the time. That's my point.
Not at all. If you stop looking at headlines, and don't take a journalists word as to the significance of a study, the basics of dietary advice have been the same for decades: eat a wide variety of fruits and veggies (the more the better), keep consumption of animal fats low to moderate, and keep the amount such that you approximately maintain your weight (not day to day, and maybe not week to week, but month-to-month shouldn't change too much, and shouldn't consistently skew one way or the other unless you have a specific reason for wanting to lose or gain weight). If you want to add "skip the sweeteners" and "avoid man-made trans fats at all costs" for good measure, be my guest.
As for the specific examples you listed: Salt and eggs in moderation aren't bad for everyone (in fact everyone _needs_ some salt), but they're very bad for some people, and bad for most of us if we go overboard; calories in, calories out is still true- your body doesn't defy physics- but it is vastly oversimplified; fat isn't bad generally, but trans fats are, and if you replace foods with a lot of saturated fat with foods higher in mono- or poly-unsaturated fats you'll be doing yourself a favor relatively speaking; alcohol and coffee are still being hashed out, but most dieticians won't balk if you have a little of either in your routine- just keep alcohol to a minimum, with no binge drinking.
Very interesting. But this problem can be addressed, if society is willing to. Which I doubt is the case. The root of the problem is the incentive to corrupt scientific research together with ideologies that prevent people from even being aware of their junk science. All of this is backed by political interest groups.
Some great examples from the "science" called "Gender Studies":
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OfoZR8aZt4 A documentary from 2013, which resulted in Norway stopping all public funding for "Gender Studies" (while this still exists in most western countries, probably because "science is only a social construct" and works differently in Norway than elsewhere)
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k "Academics expose corruption in Grievance Studies" from 2018, showing that in certain fields of "science" you can publish the most ridiculous things, including a feminist rewrite of Hitler's Mein Kampf.
So when I hear about antropogenic climate change that "the science is settled" and there is "a 99% consensus", that doesn't make me any more confident about the legitimacy of that "science", which has been show to be biased, corrupted and heavily politically influenced.
Most of this crap leads to morality charged leftist political ideologies, more precisely Marxism in all it's diverse flavours. This is a dangerous cancer and if we don't fight this, we will soon end up in another dark age of ideological ignorance, violent conflicts and the end of western civilization. And if you like to ask yourself the question "who profits?": The second largest economy on this planet, working hard to become No. 1, and which happens to be a communist country.
Not really! The truth is a lie! True results should be published only when 2 or 3 teams gain the same data . The method and design is what should be peer reviewed and then farmed out to 2 or 3 research groups to follow.
Hi. Seems like your video here is listed in the "reading list" for ICLR 2019 Reproducibility Challenge, which really highlights your excellent presentation of the topic :) https://reproducibility-challenge.github.io/iclr_2019/
NOT BEST METHOD AVAILABLE. Experiment is by definition fuzzy. It's based on probabilities. Stacking probabilities can easily push something to unmeasurable. The way to improve science is to use 1st Principles derived from Logic to create the experiments and tests of the results. There are a minimum of 36 specific Alternative types for anything you can make or do. If you don't consider all of those 36 Alternatives types you are ignoring something that might be drastically affecting your results or interpretation. Typically only 13% of the Alternatives are even considered. That means 87% randomness built into the experiments.
I'm right now having a lot of trouble publishing 2 negative-data (meaning no differences found) papers, as no one is interested and those which are interested are indeed claiming there are major flaws in the design and missing control groups. Critical thinking seems to be much more rigorous with negative data compared to positive data. As I feel the pressure to publish in order to finish my PhD, we'll have to formulate the data in such a way that the message appears positive. Is it fraud? No, not at all. I like to think that, instead of describing empty drinking glasses, it's better to describe it as "tools to start a party"
Great summary, long overdue and absolutely vital for researchers. Publication is a mess, hence why a nobel prize winner boycotted Nature, Cell and Science journals. The first TED talk I ever saw was about just this kind of statistical error, and its effects on wrongful incrimination. Not that TED deserves your presentation, I consider them utter hypocrites on their own. It's actually this reason that I don't follow Veritasium closely, since he emphasizes a lot of mainstream science and never people like Sheldrake or statisticians like Dean Radin for their part in significant scientific bias.
yes i often think about this, especially since I started studying psychological research and discovered how many studies don't get published in good journals because they don't show any new findings or don't confirm the findings!
Even knowing all of this is open and verifiable information and still many groups cling to their dogmatic beliefs in science far more stringently and pathologically than many religious fundamentalist they so often claim to hate. In their hubris they have the gall to claim the intellectually superior high ground when in fact they stand on mountains of sand.
I'm replying to your comment here because youtube sends me to a welcome page when I hit the reply link that does not have a way out of it , typical youtube ignorance.
anyway there are a lot of climate change videos on youtube and apx 99.9 % of them are total waste content because they focus
on co2 having an ability to cause the climate to warm.
the facts are co2 cannot cause warming at all , never has and never will.
its just not physically possible.
A fox found a rabbit using a typerwriter. (old story, I know.) Curiosity took over hunger and the fox asked "What are you doing?" The rabbit said "I'm working on my thesis: How rabbits eat foxes." The fox LOLed. The rabbit said "I'll show you. Follow me" and went into a large cave. A minute later, the rabbit came out alone and continued typing. Inside the cave could be see a lion eating the fox. MORAL: What matters most in research is not your thesis nor your methods, but who is your advisor.
Quarks cannot be observed. Smashing particles together results in jets of particles and light, but those particles are always protons/antiprotons, neutrons, electrons, and neutrinos. That's it. Quarks, bosons, mesons, gluons, et cetera, have never been detected directly. All these fake particles have been created out of thin air, have been reified into existence, and are talked about as though they are real, as though their existence has be observed. Same with dark matter, dark energy, big bang, any kind of black hole, neutron stars, gravity waves. None of these things has ever been observed. They are fictions built to support a what should be a dead, un-predictive, Creation Theory based on all the real evidence against it, the Big Bang.
the research with the chocolate may have had some truth to it? that fact of the matter is gene expression can be dictated by the trauma of a parent. this could have a deeper relation to personality in that their mental state, for example, the chocolate produces endorphins that affected these peoples gene in a positive way rather than a trauma before birth and any given brain chemistry changes the outcome not just a genetic expression. That just shows the importance of a well and simply designed experiment to remove as many variables as possible.
Statistics are very intertwined with logic once it comes to actual interpretation. Scientists like testing things and reading data, they don't like arguing and using logic. Scientists and lawyers will INTENTIONALLY use fallacies to prove significance to their data. (Cum hoc/post hoc propter hoc) No matter how high the P value/statistical significance, correlation does not equal causation. Sadly, if they didn't do this though, they would not get funding.
CDA Tech provides training and job placement assistance across a variety of careers. Contact us today to learn about the CDA Advantage.
Looking for a new career? Youve come to the right place.
Air Mixed Gas Commercial Diver Maritime Welding EMT DMT Our Programs.
*Underwater Welding Training at CDA Tech.
ROOM AND BOARD FOR MILITARY VETS.
CDA is proud to honor our vets. Thats why well waive both your registration fee and room and board when you attend CDA Technical Institute.*
*Restrictions apply, call for details.
After a successful career in the Army as an Army Ranger and Special Forces Combat Diver, CDA Technical Institute not only gave me a second-to-none education but they gave me the tools to be a successful, internationally-certified commercial diver! With CDAs education, the right attitude and the right work ethic you will be successful in this field!
Byron Beplay, AMGCD Program.
CDA Tech goes way past anyone’s expectations of a trade school. From the very first day this staff will be with you step-for-step making sure you feel exactly like family and helping you to succeed. I loved this school and everyone here. So take it from me: Come join the CDA Tech commercial diving family and be a part of this awesome industry!
Trey Lancaster, AMGCD Program.
I went to a trade school and got my welding certification and that was not enough. I found CDA technical Institute online and decided to become a Commercial Diver because of my love for the water. I had the best time going through CDA Technical Institute and I would definitely recommend this school to anyone looking for a career in Commercial Diving.
Brett Lamb, AMGCD Program.