Finding a fraudulent paper published in a scientific journal should give as much academic accolades as publishing a good paper. Since poking holes in a paper is much easier than producing your own, this would incentivise fraud hunters.
Climategate didn't do anything to Michael Mann. He actually took someone to court for defamation because he was called out of fraud. Mann lost the case because he never produced data to counter the claim.
I suppose that might create some discontent. You look into a research with your result being that it's correct but might still lose an opportunity to have research in the future with those people involved
@@tomlxyzWell, it would probably lead to emerging of a new class of sciencists - Verificators - who would be praised for well documented (un)successful replications and/or pointing out frauds, but not engaging in base science to prevent being in conflict of interest, as well having trouble to find collaboration…
One of the professors in my Uni wrote a paper, with an experiment that pointed towards disproving, I think a model of behavior in Psychology. Years later he found that the paper was cited in hundreds of scientific articles, as proof for the model that the paper found no evidence for. But the title could be misunderstood as being positive towards the model. So hundreds of researcher basically just read the title of his paper and cited it. Without even reading the abstract. Publish or perish science is awesome 👍👍👍
The author of the video here, I’m sure he means well, but he is naïve about how good science is. There is so much fraud. This has been proven in other studies that look at research papers and then tried to duplicate them. Most of the time they can’t because of the fraud involved in the original paper. For the author of this video to claim definitively that there is no problems with Dr. Fauci without having done any research about it at all, very disappointing. Fauci the quack has a long controversial history that even a cursory glance will identify, and it is clear that he is not a real researcher. He was in a powerful position controlling the hand out of so much money into scientific research that everybody felt they had to paint him with a bright review. Absolutely disgusting. Comes down to this patronizing crummy video
I think the current practices and culture around social science journals are a bottleneck for this issue. I have seen many rejection letters sent out to colleagues on the grounds that research was "too derivative or repeating prior work". This coupled with the constant demand for novel findings, gatekeeping around theory, and the bizare insistence that we can only publish so much because of printing restraints in an era where most articles are read online: this all works to discourage replication and scrutiny in our publish or die world.
Rejecting research because it repeats prior work, that's a blatant violation of one of the most fundamental principles in scientific metodology: reproducability. The results of an experiment are not actually valid until they have been duplicated and comfirmed by another independent researcher/research team. But who's going to do this vital validation when there's nothing in it for them?
Absolutely true and well put. I am a patient who has to do an enormous amount of medical research because I have a rare genetic disease that affects myself and my adult daughter, and had affected my late mother. I still have to ask doctors if they know of Ehlers Danlos, and half of them do not, and those that have heard of it, half of them don't even know what it is but they've heard the name. So we have to become experts. Only recently did I learn about predatory journals, and had to go in and comb out the few suspect articles that I had in a two year research project on the flawed treatment I was getting for my congestive heart failure that put my life in danger. Thank God I'm OK, and I changed my treatment on my own and I am doing fantastically better, but that's not my job or shouldn't be. We need a better system, I agree.
@@tessjuelthis is a great point, I don’t know if you guys know who BobbyBroccoli is, but he has a great series on scientific fraud, his videos on The Race for the New Elements which highlights the issue of the demand for novel findings.
@@Mezog001 not only do I agree with you I believe that funding for replication research needs to be started in all the sciences. There needs to be a tax incentive to do so for institutions, and there needs to be a way to fine not only government tax money but other sources of money such as taxing certain industries that benefit from the research or from doing business within the field. It would take a long time and a lot of work but it's necessary I agree completely.
We have the yearning to say, "there is just a small number of fraudulent studies, and for the most part, the majority of studies are done by reputable, well-intentioned, ethical people." How much evidence are we going to have to face year after year before we accept the equal or skewed in the wedding direction, the likelihood that we have scientific study that is purposed for acquiring specific results rather that seeing what the true results are.
Fully agree -- particularly with the last sentence. We too often (particularly in the social sciences) of doing demonstrations, not tests of well-specified theoretic predictions.
what is the evidence you’re referring to here? yes, you can find what is essentially anecdotal evidence, many cases of individual people committing fraud, but as was stated in the video, science is a very collaborative and community based thing. the understanding of a particular field on a topic isnt something thats dictated by one or two hotshots who might have committed fraud; rather, it is based on the collective findings of the field with contributions by tons of different research teams, pieces published in many different journals, etc. even if someone commits fraud and their research points our understanding in a certain direction, their conclusions arent going to have a really negative impact on the field because other research teams will not be able to use these conclusions to prove their own ideas, and eventually theyll look elsewhere for conclusions to build their own work off of, which can be supported by real evidence. from what i have seen, there is no evidence of systematic fraud in which different researchers/labs/etc are all committing fraud all pointing in the same directions in terms of their conclusions. it is one thing to say “for any given scientist we should be skeptical of their conclusions because their research could be fraudulent” and a whole other thing to say “we shouldnt trust a given consensus of a respective field because of the possibility of scientific fraud.” evidence for the former, which as ive said there is plenty of, doesnt automatically count as evidence for the latter.
Much funding for Basic Science comes from the Government. Decades ago, typically the Government funded COMPETING studies at multiple institutions, this made fraud very difficult, but still major differences in answers were found based on initial assumptions. I have witnessed the funding of these competitive studies going away, sometimes with the “winning “ group, that with remaining funding, getting it merely based on political considerations. Without this competition & it makes it much easier to commit fraud or biased data.
I was a newly hired to work in public health for a professor whom I greatly admired at the university of Minnesota who was working on studies in smoking in housing and smoking around babies. I was supposed to input on the computer information from questionares from residents in housing supposedly filled in by the residents. I noticed that the writing seemed to be the same in all the questionnaires in one batch and similar in a second group as if maybe 30 questionares filled out by two people. I went to the professor and asked if these questionnaires had been filled out by the residents or by 2 interviewers. I was told by the professor, the residents. I voiced my concern that only two different handwritings appeared in all the questionnaires. She did not seem concerned. After that I was asked to do tasks out of the office. I came back from one to find a letter on the printer firing me. I head of Eoidemiology took me into an office and verbally fired me. I had talked to a professor I knew in psychology before I was fired but after that did not report it because I felt dispondent in being fired and losing trust in an admired person. J. Lester
8:00 - Cults exist. Some cults will go above and beyond to "prove" their theory right. It doesn't matter how many people are in them if they all have this shared belief. Just because there is a lot of them, doesn't mean it isn't possible they are using their shared belief as a starting point.
In the long run, honesty and accurate analyses are the only road to a successful career in science. Fudging results only produces short-term gains; just as you point out, the results won't replicate and your name will be sullied. The situation could be improved, though, by ensuring the motivation for scientists is to determine what is really going on, rather than the bias resulting from publication only of positive results, and counting the number of publications for career advancement, etc.
Prestige, adulation, Ideology (eg communists), systems thinking (perfect systems versus messy data), peer pressure to conform with other results, compassion for colleagues (pressure to replicate their fraudulent results) , worries about the reputation of science overall, worries about future funding for the field ,
The reasons you gave of course and more. Financial gain for example. Or just plain simply; it’s their pay check. People tend to not mess with that. Even when they know it is not entirely the entire truth or at all. Science is totally controlled. The biggest reason is to hide God’s existence and His creation. And following that, Jesus Christ and His sacrifice. Although, some “scientists” have proven a creator’s existence by accident. Others have found our Creator through their work. Though these stories are usually not promoted or just “hidden/suppressed”. There’s a lot of agenda’s involved in science for a long time now. They who rule us have always tried hiding God, His Word and His only begotten Son.
As for fraud in climate science I recommend reading Climate Models for the Layman by Dr Judith Curry. She is a climate scientist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech.
If you're concerned about fraudulent research making its way into the literature and would like to support the work of a group focused on its detection, please consider supporting Data Colada's Legal Defense team at www.gofundme.com/f/uhbka-support-data-coladas-legal-defense?+share-sheet& From the gofundme.com page: Leif Nelson, Joe Simmons, and Uri Simonsohn are professors who together publish the Data Colada blog. In June 2023, they published a series of blog posts raising concerns about the integrity of the data in four papers co-authored by Harvard Business School (HBS) Professor Francesca Gino. They waited to publish these blog posts until after the HBS’s investigation concluded, with HBS placing Professor Gino on leave and requesting retractions for the four papers. In early August 2023, Professor Gino filed a lawsuit for defamation against Harvard University, and against Leif, Joe, and Uri personally, claiming 25 million dollars in damages. Defending oneself in court is time-consuming and expensive regardless of the merits of the lawsuit - as First Amendment lawyer Ken White put it to Vox , “The process is the punishment.” Targets of scientific criticism can thus use the legal system to silence their critics.
Shortly after a US Presidential election, my two levels up boss walked into my lab and stated: “I don’t care how good your science is, if it doesn’t support the new administration’s agenda, your funding will be cut”.
@@KitYeeScott and one would not find it inconceivable that this Assoc. Prof. might have receive a similar word, when so much tax funded $$ are at stake.
@@dionysianapollomarx why my silly commentor Goebbels was noted as saying 'repeat it umpteen times and the stupid masses will believe it' but better yet go work in the real corporate world and see it first hand, you romantic swine are a dime a dozen, til you enter the real world and get your swtichblade out and stare at your wrist, with vain glory in your heart, we all weathered souls laugh at you as you take your life, for you had not, the will to live
Thank you so much for these two videos. I am not a scientist and I do not have a degree as a doctor, but I've had to do my own research into medical journals and articles because I, my mother, and then my daughter all had symptoms of several chronic conditions that did not make sense. I am turning 69 and I was only properly diagnosed with Ehlers-Danlos in 2008 at the age of 54, when my daughter was 28, and long after the passing of my mother who never knew of this. It is traumatizing to find out that I can't trust medical journals anymore. Now I must learn how to assess what is a predatory journal, what is bad science, what constitutes good research, and who to trust and when could they be trusted. For the past six years I've been under treatment for congestive heart failure, and I knew something was wrong, I knew the treatment was making me sicker and not doing what it was supposed to do. It took me years of researching my condition before I was able to figure out what was going on and to take steps to correct it. And then suddenly I find out about all this fraud and have to go back through and make sure that I hadn't accidentally included articles from predatory journals. Luckily I only found two. In the end it turned out that my assessment of the meta-data over the last decade or two in regards to my treatment was validated a year and a half ago by the American heart association and the American College of cardiology. We came to the same conclusion, I change my treatment, and I am doing so much better and my life is no longer at risk. But I had to do that research on my own, not my doctors, and they wouldn't change my treatment till I confronted them with the research that the AHA and ACC had done. If a patient or the parents of a child have to go to places like PubMed, Medline, and journals like the Lancet to find information they are not getting from their doctors, it is paramount that we be able to trust these sources because the downside of this fraud is death for people like myself and my daughter. The lack of scientific rigor and forthrightness, coupled with greed, is a danger to us all and puts all our lives at risk.
@@RLantz-ke6xi it isn't a single citation, it really does depend upon the structure and nature of your congestive heart failure. It depends on whether or not it is left or right sided, what type, in what way your heart is failing, and causing what type of congestion, and whether or not you have preserved or reduced ejection from your heart and what part of the heart. Is there congestion in the lungs, is there congestion/edema in the peripherals and the abdomen, or is it around the heart, is there liver disease involved, and so forth. This is what I had to study. I also had to study how the heart and the blood flow through the kidneys affects the way the kidney perceives the need to either rid the body of sodium and fluid or to retain it. Then there's the whole thing with your endocrine system and how that comes into play as it did with me with the Hashimoto, and the development of a very specific type of edema called myxedema. Those are all the kind of things you have to take into consideration when you talk about it, plus things like absorption issues in the intestines, whether or not you have edema in the intestinal walls and whether or not you're getting what's called a therapeutic level of your diuretic, if you even need diuretic. Do you know any of these factors? This is why it took me six years of study and research into how it all plays together, but also how my special needs, and my special genetic disorders also play a role in all of this. The best I can tell you is a couple of things. Google predatory medical journals and learn about that so you know which open source journals are suspect and why. You need to find out whether or not you are retaining fluids, if so, where and why. You need to have kidney test done to find out what's going on with your kidneys and whether or not you have any kidney damage already because that will play in to what you need to do and what you don't need to do. For me I don't have kidney disease and I've been able to keep it that way. Congestive heart failure is a catch phrase that simply means your heart is not working to capacity and it's interfering or causing damage to the kidneys, thus causing the body to retain sodium and fluid which is called congestion. Sort of a chicken and egg scenario. What came first the damage to the heart, the damage to the thyroid, or the damage to the kidneys, or all three or combination there of. That's what you need to know and it's from there that you figure out how to best assess your treatment. But in a nutshell it's basically figuring out how to get what's called a therapeutic level of diuretic to your kidneys that they do not reject in order to pull fluid not only out of the bloodstream but out of the tissue. If you have any other edema issues such as a problem with your lymphatic system that changes the picture all together. It's not a simple answer. What can you tell me?
Thanks for this video. I have a physics PhD, so I like to think I have a firm grasp on experimental science. I’d like to add that I’ve worked on EPA weather station data. My issue with climate science isn’t that honest science isn’t being done, it’s that there are incentives for alarmism, and I believe this hurts the public well being for no reason. As you well know, falsifiability is a pillar of experimental science. Where is that with climate science? Physics experiments in tightly controlled environments are still subject to tons of uncertainties that need to be accounted for. The Earth’s climate is an enormously complex, non-linear system with certain poorly understood causes and effects that has literally been under direct observation for a blink of an eye on geologic time scales. Most people that have read this far will call me a “climate denier”. Obviously we should investigate the effects of industry on the atmosphere and try to at least be in control of it, but the fear monger ing is way out of hand. The planet’s ecosystems are in much more danger by our immediate actions than the planet warming by 0.2 degrees in the next 100 years. And has anyone considered the possibility that a slightly warmer temperature might be a good thing? Let me know when that paper gets published and gets some attention. It’s not about widespread fraud to me in this case, it’s about a field of scientific enquiry that has become political, and thus, shit. Anyway, thanks for your efforts in these videos!
@@dionysianapollomarx I'll show you mine if you show me yours. I'll also show you my Mensa score, just to prove that you're bringing a cap gun to a gunfight.
I made an argument for a historic trend I find scary. I fear we've entered the phase in science where the low hanging fruit has largely been plucked. When clear cut conclusions are increasingly scarce we need more patience for thinner statistical margins and grayer indications on significance. If so, then media needs to be more skeptical as society reacts more calmly to scientific reports. This generalization was highly criticized but without much to reasure me. I believe in science and offered my fear as an impetus to greater support for programs such as those you suggest. Thanks for your thoughtful approach.
Not sure I agree. There's a huge amount of data in the world and, in my experience, it's becoming easier to answer interesting questions without having to run a single experiment. The problem is most scientists are trained in a rigid, cookbook tradition of statistics which is simply too inflexible for real-world use. Indeed, the problem may be that the internet and Big Data are making our statistical margins too thin - just because you have a p-value of 1/1x10^6 doesn't mean your result is interesting!
Perhaps a part of the problem. Other salient issues include the absence of credible scientific theory backing empirical endeavors and the fact that we credential folk well beyond their abilities these days. For instance, in psychology we cannot even define (much less study) most of our key concepts -- e.g., self, consciousness, memory... Pretty pathetic and seriously disqualifying vis a vis the designation of scientific discovery.@@TheFartoholic
I watched the first video and thought he gave a balanced and fair analysis. He was moving along nicely in this video. Unfortunately his credibility was strained when he commented he did not see anthing in Fauci’s work or the climate change crowd that might make someone think there might be some misrepresentation going on. We are a ways off on getting to the truth on covid, it’s origins, the vaccine data, etc. And with some honest serious questions and Fauci’s own emails and misrepresentations to Congress, to give him a pass is simply absurd
Yes - that was my conclusion as well. I think though this may just be a subtle artifact of the intrinsic bias the author has versus our intrinsic biases. He is willing to trust/give these people a pass because he seems to disbelieve or is unaware that manufactured consensus is a real concern in altering the credibility of the scientific community. A big example of this would be the Great Barrington Declaration and Collins/Fauci conspiring with the media to crush any competing scientific hypotheses and create manufactured consensus. Policy driven "science" can quickly turn into institution driven confirmation bias --- a real threat to getting at the truth. Dear Eric VanMan - I encourage you to do some more research on this effect and be more skeptical of consensuses that you are tempted to ascribe to without understanding motivators driving the consensuses.
The only problem is they are far from the only data sources. The total work on climate and COVID is international and from many institutions and many, many totally unrelated scholars. Even if Fauci were proven a complete hack, it would change absolutely nothing about all that other data, and that's really what you need to look at. How much of the _total corpus_ from the global enterprise in those domains is solid, how much is fraud, and is there any pattern to the fraud that would substantially alter the conclusions?
7:58 -- The evidence of climate fraud is overwhelming -- starting with Michael Mann's e-mail in which he stated that the results of his findings had to suit the goals of the IPCC.
No, it's not. Whatever evidence of fraud in climate science you can come up with is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of good data that supports what the vast majority of climate scientists are reporting. You are doing both science and humanity a disservice by continuing to flog this dead horse.
No it's not lol. Even if you completely disregard those findings and any findings of the IPCC, there is still overwhelming evidence that it is happening.
@@TheNotSoFakeNews -- Every single day claims are made about global warming and every single day those claims are exposed as lies. The rise in sea level was supposed to drown the Maldive islands; instead, there's been a building boom there. The ice on the Arctic Sea is melting. The proof? Satellite photos taken during the summer. The IPCC has repeatedly predicted exponential warming ... which never occurs. If summers are hot, that's proof of global warming; if summers are cold, that's also proof of global warming. NASA has been repeatedly caught altering temperature records. The fraud and lies go on and on.
@@TheNotSoFakeNewsyes … overwhelming evidence climate fraud is happening. Tony Heller exposes examples of how climate data has been manipulated by the climate alarmists whose careers depend on it.
Example medical mistake: Digoxin was medicine of choice for heart failure. It was claimed to strengthen heart muscle fibers. It went on as such for decades until in the 80s it was proved to work only on healthy heart but not on failed heart due to stretched fibers. It still works as anti-arrhythmic and this helped those cases associated with arrhythmias leading to wrong conclusion.
Ingham's Chicken paid off a few doctors to promote it's product as the healthy heart alternative, similar to the tobacco lobby, the wheat board, etc, when the unssupecting want a return on their investment, business does what it must.
I think when an organization or community leads and admits mistakes and fraud within their circles, it adds to public credibility. Nobody and no community is perfect. I think reasonable people would expect someone somewhere at sometime to cross a community standard
Tony Heller does videos on climate change. Maybe more of us could look at that. Why use ground temperature to tell people that there is a global boiling??? Who did meteorology in any level knows that data is collected from a box 2 meters above the ground. This is only one example of data usage in advancing of the agenda. The climate talk started long time ago but now is reaching absurdity
literally every meteorologist knows about data collection from ASOS/METAR stations. Instrumentation is a requirement for your bachelor's. we collect temperature data at 2 meters because that is where people are, not 2,000 ft in the air.
Is that the _only_ temperature data collected, though? How do you know that? I mean, high-altitude balloons have been a thing for a very long time, just for one thing that comes to mind off the top of my head.
Thanks for your intelligent discussion of that issue. Regarding climate science and Fauci/CDC-led science: I suggest listening to Dr Judith Curry on the climate science side and Prof Vinay Prasad or Prof Jay Bhattacharya on the „CDC- science“ conduct may help reawaken your critical view on those two issues - rather than, with due respect, just making straw man arguments.
You come to think that psychology is not a science, leaving science fraud apart, because a) there are different schools of psychology and I get that they, in part at least, contradict each other and this is confusing, and b) at least when it comes to some areas of research, it is doubtful that a study two decades ago, lets say in Japan, would apply today in Portugal.
I think data is more malleable than the general public would like to believe, and the truth usually many orders of magnitude more complex than even our more advanced models. In that environment people with conflicts of interests often draw whatever conclusions are most convenient for them.
How do you think this problem differs in social vs stem? I believe it's more prevalent in social sciences on top of far greater possibility of data manipulation and researcher's believes impact.
The arts is a inquiry into subjective things, you can't have a scientific result. Always predictable, testable, and replicable is science. The M in steam is a arts inquiry, not a science. Using science to study feeling, doesn't make feeling any less subjective.
Science has become a devisive and political instrument to cudgel the hoi polloi into submission of state policy, not unlike religious bodies hold power.
As you get into fields where peer review is harder I believe this trend increases. In math you can still have people making mistakes but intentionally publishing incorrect proofs and surviving peer review is quite slim compared to say chemistry. And even chemistry is miles easier for peer review compared to social sciences or medicine.
Most of the time, in competitive arenas, the people most likely to cheat are the ones who have the skill and position to have actually done it correctly. The top athletes dope, the best e-sports players cheat, the most prestigious academics fake data... Most often this happens because of image pressure from the community at large. These individuals feel safe and self righteous, like they already deserve the accolades that come with whatever the accomplishment is. So they take it... Seems like a feedback mechanism between what society expects from a journal and modern academia, and the pressures of academics to give those journals "heros" to worship. Maybe that should be what changes first. Change the behavior and the personality will follow.
@@Robert_McGarry_Poems it's not schadenfreude when one has looked up to a doyen of their field and invested time, money and belief, to find them an absolute fraud, a la Lance Armstrong. I have worked with an olympic cyclist, he told they are all on drugs, he suffered major hormonal issues post performance, they all are duping the populace, I have visceral hatred for these types, they are judas goats that lead the well meaning to a similar path, 'cause everybody else does it.
It does not. You don’t even know what many of the social sciences consist of. You just assume what it’s about. There’s a lot of qualitative analysis in chemistry, ergo that part of chemistry is not science. Ergo chemistry is not science. Stop it.
@@dionysianapollomarx Chemistry: the Law of Conservation of Mass, the Law of Definite Proportions, the Law of Multiple Proportions. Psychology? *crickets* The soft sciences have yet to build universals necessary to employ the scientific method. They are the equivalent of pre-Euclidean geometry and going backwards.
I applaud you for both of these videos. Your honesty if apparent and very appreciated. I have two inquiries concerning 1) a 2009 hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia email scandal 'climate gate', and 2) what your thoughts are regarding 'climate modeling' as being considered as a legitimate or illegitimate part of the scientific method, as well as its potential for fraud or abuse?
There was a time when "science" was called by a different name. Natural Philosophy or simply philosophy is what " scientists " did in bygone eras. Philosophy is a quest for the truth. Whether the method is human reason by itself or human reason (also called hypothesis) with experimental attempts to verify the hypothesis. The fact remains " science " is based on human reason first of all. Using experimental data to back it up is almost an afterthought. In modern times we like to pat ourselves on the back about how far we've come in using objectivity to support our theories. But let's be honest. If human reason can be wrong about its conclusions . . . then it must be obvious science itself can also be wrong. Whether the " wrong " happens because of (1) unprofessional carelessness or (2) deliberate fraud is almost coincidental. Whenever we put our complete trust in something humans have established as " RELIABLE " . . . we set ourselves up for disappointment. In this case " science."
Yes -- scientific technology (like the one we currently are on) is a clear demonstration of the fickle and near-arbitrary nature of science. Good points!
Stanford Prison Experiment: Zimbardo's Famous Study
In 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues set out to create an experiment that looked at the impact of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The Stanford Prison Experiment, also known as the Zimbardo Prison Experiment, went on to become one of the best-known (and controversial) He hiton me.
Excellent videos on individual driven scientific fraud! Since you live in Queensland Australia and experienced the most stringent and draconian lock down policies "informed by science" ---- could you kindly make a video with your thoughts on systemic or institutionalized science fraud exhibited by governmental agencies (cherry picking data etc. to support a pre-selected narrative) and the influence of big business pharmaceutical companies/government funding agencies in directing scientific exploration (and ignoring other areas which are less profitable).
The validity of a policy, and validity of science, are two different things. Policies are actually not science at all, they are a politician's reaction to their (almost always not very informed) interpretation of science. Lockdown was obviously far from an ideal policy for many reasons, but that COVID was _not_ as a matter of fact a mass-disabling disease is not one of those reasons. Note the vast majority of COVID research is and was not ordered by a politician, and is ongoing all over the world even absent of politicians caring much about the issue at all these days. And the picture is _not_ getting rosier. The opposite ... it's indicting the apathy we've come to, as children and others slowly lose brain function due to neurological damage from the virus infecting neurons in repeated infection after infection because people's upset at lockdowns has become generalized to opposition to even far less obtrusive but much more effective measures like masking and especially improved indoor ventilation and air filtration in densely-peopled indoor settings like classrooms.
One of the first instances of this was Sir Ernst Haeckel The phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” was coined by Ernst Haeckel in 1866 and for many decades was accepted as natural law. Haeckel meant it in the strict sense: that an organism, in the course of its development, goes through all the stages of those forms of life from which it has evolved. Called the Great BioGenetic Law however he was caught modifying the original woodcut of a collogue and drawing in things that were not their, modifying things that were there to enhance his ideas for grants, and was called before a college court of inquiry (basically and ethics review) where he say " I would be remissed accept all my other collogues are doing the same thing. We have known for 100 years it was false but because it was easily handed to a student as proof of Evolution everyone looks the other way.
I don't "believe" because I understand the scientific method. I also understand why the word 'science' is often used for marketing purposes, which I did study. We each live in other little silos. We hate being confronted by contrary (not contrarian) evidence. Maybe you should go see what people like Dr. John Campbell have to say on the topic you "believe" in. He sure had to confront contrary to the narrative facts. Bur, you were told to hate people like him. Hatred is the instant highway to feel superior and righteous. There's also this world famous cardiologist Peter McCullough, MD I would recommend. I could recommend more, but I'm hungry
I love your videos! Critical thinking is necessary. By addressing some issues in your field, you invite researchers to be aware of fraudulent research. Your videos invite them to committ to transparency and foster truth in Psychology amd other fields.
It doesn't seem to be widely known that "soft" science does the same things with data that "hard" science does. I got help from the mathematics dept. when analyzing the data for my thesis in applied linguistics. Definitely not true in all cases that scholars in soft science assume whatever they want to prove, read literature, and cherry pick whatever they need to support their preferred position. To really make a point even in soft science, you will need to collect data. Would you say that in some cases that privacy regulations like FERPA and IRB protocols are used as a firewall against inquiry into the validity of the data or the accuracy of the figures that have been extrapolated? "Sorry, I can't let you see the raw data - it's confidential!"
What are the reporting requirements for said 1000's of scientists in the climate field? I have heard that that many scientists do not agree but are not reported.
unfortunately video views get high only if it contain direct critics to personalities, organizations or negative review in general. I remarked this pattern in many science related channel or the one that offer laser focus topics, Unfortunately many rest underrated because they didn' t follow some over-hyped news
This was a very nice, thoughtful response. I'm glad that the last video blew up so that more people can be exposed to this channel, even if it brings a few inevitable trolls. Keep up the good work and don't get discouraged :)
Can you please follow this up with an Update!!! Please share your thoughts on the issue of the Xerox algorithms being blamed for years of data seeming to be manipulated. Pictures and even numbers were being skewed by the machines.
Astoundingly, journal acceptance and publication is not subject to the scientific method. Human bias is huge. Eliminating it requires strict adherence to scientific method which including double blind cross over testing. Papers submitted for publication should not include the names of the authors. This would eliminate bias towards famous authors and against unknown authors. Also the reviewers should not collaborate. Each reviewer should act alone. Finally, papers that are created obviously fraudulent, only to test the reviewers, should be regularly released allowing a regular publication of the effectiveness of the review process. John Edser Independent Researcher
7:06 I think it is impossible to get every single lab/researcher in a field to go on with something that is fake, but we can get something like a significant amount of labs/researchers just "going with the flow" and validating fake results, like LK-99 for example there were a 2 labs saying they also made the material and that it was "somewhat legit" for example. However stopping doing science as a process to create/find knowledge is just silly. Academics should try to make a better job in weeding out the "bullshitters" though, imo ^^'
It’s not a conspiracy in the classical sense. It’s a distributed ideology within the “scientific” community. They believe they should fake data in the name of “the greater good”. Suppressing information refuting climate change, ignoring HBD science because it’s “racist” etc
one cant know everything, we trust 'cause we must, experience the failure of a large structure where the left hand knows not what the right is doing from above but many below do, and know it's in their best interest to keep silent lest jeopardise ones own interest, knowing whistle blowing is a worse end.
How is LK-99 an example of "a significant amount of labs/researchers going with the flowand validating fake results"? A vast majority of the scientific community were immediately skeptical of the LK-99 paper. That seems to be the opposite of what you were insinuating.
@@brendanmetivier511 he's obviously never worked in the real corporate world of daily shananigans where sociopathic short term gains are the norm and loose lips sink ships and jeopardise paying down mortgage debt, if these people knew what I did with the food they eat let alone the policy they felatio, they'd be mortified.
I disagree with likening it to sexual predators in the movie industry and not watching movies because of it. The direct analogy to that would be sexual predation in a lab or publishing context, and if it was by the largest publisher in the field, you might very well question the authenticity of everything ever published in that field.
It's very sad that in every corner of society ans academics, the people who are working to change things for the better are met with push back, defunding, and ostracism.
Did you seriously say you have no doubts or questions about covid science or climate science, can you truly say that with a straight face now who's not being honest I realise you don't want them to target you, but you could have worded things better.
Personally, I have pushed movies out of my life because of the degeneracy that characterizes the culture of Hollywood. The problem here is that Psychology is not science.
FYI, "replicate" unfortunately popularized by Star Trek the Next Generation, means to rebuild from the ground up or recreate from scrap. I think the term you're looking for is "duplicate", which was in fashion and use prior to 1989.
Thanks for your thoughtful videos. Checked out a channel you mentioned in this video and your content is much more valuable than that one. Keep up your good work.
Critism can be a useful thing if one has integrity. I once heard a business man in course i took say that tax audits should be and should be a good thing as they taxpeople help with filing system and making sure documents align with law. So if you're legal and have integrity this is good! Our social organizations are so ill defined and hardly inclusive of actual stakeholders. But thankfully more and more examples beyoind the binary capitalism, socialism,communism structures are appearing if one looks for it! Academia stills has some major issues to deal with 😅
ThatChemist here on TH-cam has done some fun case studies on obviously problematic published papers, including one about using “banana water” to some end
Publishing a paper seems to hardly matter at all. As science isn't dogmatic, it doesn't matter if a paper's from a world famous scientist or a no name amateur. Peer review and independently replicating experiments/results is what roots out most bias and fraud. The scientific method isn't perfect, but it is the most reliable method for understanding how reality actually works.
Thank you for this excellent presentation. One thing I would have liked to see is the impact of high dimensionality of the subject space on replicability. I.e. the number of confounding variables, resulting in a need for large sample sizes and design to experimental power. In psychology, biology, and medicine, this drives up the cost of experiments as well as the likelihood of fraud, cherry-picking, and unreplicatable results. The funding sources in these fields ought to pay more attention to the experimental design. However, a certain fraction of the population are risk takers who believe they will never be caught. Even in physics, with far fewer variables than psychology, we had Henrik Schon.
The problem with we human is that when we are way way above others in term of intelligence, academic achievement, personal wealth, power, we human would tend to be arrogant, and think that we are invincible.... Just like the people trying to build the tower of Babel.....
No ,the problem is it’s much too easy to do fake,peer reviewed research.About 10 years ago the editor for the Lancet expressed his concern that as many as 50% of the articles he reviews could have some element of falsified or fabricated data.
Thanks. I was wondering if you'd reply to some of the harsher criticisms. I'm glad you did. I hear it a lot online: "psychology is not a science." People have become quite cynical about a lot of things, including this. Not surprising, given the history of psychology being looked down on as "not a real science" and now the replication crisis. I can see their point, but I don't like broad dismissive generalizations of an entire field. To me (retired psychologist), psychology is both art and soft science, depending on what subdiscipline you're talking about. After all, psychology isn't a unitary thing; it's composed of many different subdisciplines, some of which are more "scientific" than others. For instance, imo, personality psychology is only marginally scientific, whereas intelligence testing or neuropsychological testing is more so. // Just off the cuff, I think the scientific status of psychology is weakened by the fact that 1) the human mind is incredibly complex, and our experiments are so crude/simplistic; 2) the mind is not susceptible to reductionist dissection, which many sciences depend on; and 3) what interests us is mostly internal experience, not external behavior, yet science is limited to the publicly observable, so we have to try to grasp the interior by looking at the exterior, which is fraught with problems. // Anyhow, thank you for the video.
there are many simple facts about psychology... every behaviour like defending oneself, being triggered etc is based in psychology... we know that parents play a big role in a childs development... you tell me all these information is nonsense? not repeatable? are you stupid or something?
8:15: That's actually not at all hard to imagine (though fraud has nothing to do with it). It happens in science all the time that a scientific consensus turns out to have been entirely wrong, or wrong in some important respects, because of a theoretical paradigm that findings were interpreted within, which later was rejected or superseded. I don't think climate change denialists will be able to get much mileage out of this fact (on the most basic level, we're talking here about a relatively straightforward application of basic physics, which itself in turn went through several paradigm shifts without a change that would matter to the result of the calculation in question), let alone COVID conspiracy theorists (the COVID vaccine and social distancing measures are now the most widely and extensively tested medical interventions in history, and the results are rock solid). But it is still true that scientists as a group are often wrong. Indeed, that's a feature of how science works, not a bug.
Yes, but understand it very thoroughly first. E.g. if you challenge a vaccine as being a "gene therapy" in a way that shows you don't even understand what a gene therapy really is, your challenge is "not even wrong". The thing that gets me annoyed with a lot of people who are outside a field of science questioning research in that field (those who ARE expert in it questioning it is different) is that so many criticisms seem to be rooted in basic errors like that one. You can't critique properly what you don't even understand ... even if it _could_ be critiqued.
As human beings the innate obligation each of us shares is to truth. It seems we are born in relationship with truth, as evidenced with the sincerity of infants. Whether or not individuals as adults recognize such obligation is is what makes room for the honest scientist or the fraudulent one.
Reminds me of an article I read about Darwin`s theory of natural selection where the writer pointed out that people did n`t jump straight in because it was popular,some were convinced because it explained the evidence they were studying but the real push was from lots of researchers who did n`t want to believe it and went out into the world searching for evidence to prove it false.Apparently there have now been thousands of failed challenges.
I don't think that's true. There are scientists who disagree with natural selection, but they are dismissed and ignored because Darwinism has become dogma.
1. Whew I just found you + subbed & was worried from the thumbnail you were going to be anti (legitimate) investigation or deny it's been a problem. So glad I can stay subbed! Thanks. I agree with your ethical + intellectual stance on data + data-interpretation fraud & I look forward to more from the channel. 2. My family is mostly very conservative (I broke their hearts with my rampant progressivism + respect for expertise instead of "common sense" gut-takes), so they're very low-information with popular science conversation & are hostile towards expertise & and to be anti-curiosity. Those family members like to use these scandals as "gotchas" intended to discredit the entire enterprise of science, but I've replied this is science --- self-correcting, working as intended --- & replication/dis-proving ingrained practices aren't properly funded, supported, or structured, which I interpret as a current problem in science + academia management/administration/public support, not a problem of "Science". We should expect fraud, we should expect to catch some bad results, we should expect better models of understanding to emerge through revision + replication processes, & we should expect our minds to change with evidence. A whole field/set of roles has emerged + is growing with new generations of academics + science grads incoming & we're going to keep seeing positive changes across the sciences. 3. Contemplating this stuff made me realize that I have not heard how or whether the American Psychological Association ever came to terms with the very visible, higher-up academic colleagues in APA leadership who went to work for the US military (+ perhaps private military contractors?) during America's GWOT era & worked alongside military colleagues to "supervise" &/or develop torture regimens, particularly in Guantanamo (but perhaps also at documented Black Sites?) from that part of the American GWOT efforts. There was a loose movement of psychologists + academics + students that opposed psychology being used to punish or influence but esp they believed torture was a line the field should collectively refuse to cross. They were more underground voices for a few years, that formalized into a confrontation at an APA meeting (early 2010s? I think??) between colleagues who felt psychologists who'd contributed to torture had broken with the larger community & they asked APA leadership for a formal statement of opposition to torture, & investigating members who were involved in military-type work with prisoners/detainees, & if they were found to have chosen to participate, expelling those. I'd love an overview + update on where all this went. If anywhere. One of the American presidential nominee candidates is a lawyer who allegedly participated in torture at Guantanamo, so there may be an element of timeliness to the topic, too. 4. Would love a history of Canadian university McGill's unethical psych experiments & how/whether they fixed that tendency in their dept. That needs a book written about it but I'd settle for an overview from an informed source. 5. Thanks! Best wishes to anyone who read this! 💐
@@socialneuro Thanks for reading my very long comments, you obv gave me much food for thought. Re: McGill: I was trying to stay away from potentially "hot button" language, but to narrow your search, McGill had an era of psychedelic investigation & it had an era of experimentation with little or no informed consent & as a layperson I've never been able to understand if these are overlapping, the same, or competing claims. I haven't been able to source the "informed consent" part so it could've been inflated so within norms of the era; maybe an overview of how "informed consent" as a concept evolved into current best practices in psychology is more appropriate. But I am curious how McGill changed its psych dept culture both going into & coming out of that body of research. Aw, apologies for wind-bagging again. As mentioned, I'll watch whatever you make, it'll all be interesting. Thanks for going beyond your current professional + life duties to take time + effort presenting psychology in a public-facing space.
You need to be strong enough to endure blowback. This is rare. Go back and listen again to Brett Weinstein. Courageous, honest, precise. And for this? Demonized and demonetized.
I think there should be open research platforms and how to allocate resources in those platforms, how to avoid fraud, how to better the platforms in general should be a topic of research. The systematization and optimization of science itself should be a topic of research. This would influence everything, from new legislation to safeguard intellectual property to the publishing of null results and inconclusive results and the acknowledgement of these as important science too. Edit: oops, I think people are already doing that. I just reached the final portion of your video.
That’s a great idea! I even met some of Harlow’s monkeys decades later, where they were living in retirement at a primate center in California. Look for this in the next month or so. .
I’m just a simple man but old enough to know that fraudsters are everywhere. And that the longer they have done it, the better they are at doing it. We all fail in many ways. It doesn’t surprise me but confirms what I already suspected of all sons of Adam. In the Bible’s last chapter, it describes a glorious place where no one lies. Come Lord Jesus!
With regards to systemic fraud, I think you're right that individual fraud is more the issue. On the systemic level it seems like societal biases and narratives tend to get more baked into certain frameworks, which can lead large groups of researchers off on blind alleys. You can see this with how long it took Burt to be called out for example. While I'm sure more recent work has built on it I found Lewington, Kamin and Rose's breakdown of twin studies in the era (Not in Our Genes 1984) compellingly argued that Burt wasn't caught out because there was this large body of researchers generating similar interpretations of data, even if there's were more due to weighted study design than outright fraud (While their works a bit old Jay Joseph's The Trouble with Twin Studies 2015 and Viney's Getting the Measure of Twins 2016 in the Edinburgh Guide to Critical medical humanities lead me to believe that twin studies still fall foul of many of these ingrained assumptions [and I've also been subject to twin studies since I was born, hence my interest since I started to notice these high estimates of heritability popping up in every press release we got]). I wouldn't call this in any way equivalent to fraud, I don't think it's intentional, but since the practice of science is always a social event taking place in an ongoing society, I do think systemic issues can work their way in (even when tests are performed all over the world, the economic structure of universities tends to export specific kind of logic as we can see in some of the replication issues with body language studies) and I think that's useful to breach as a context for how these fraud cases manage to hide (because people are often less critical of science that cuts an expected way. Because Burt was saying that things were highly heritable to an audience of scientists who wanted to hear that, his data was treated with less scepticism than someone like Kamin who was arguing that the study design of twin studies was fundamentally flawed). I think it's one of those reasons why it's useful to have cross disciplinary work so scientists know the history of the fields they're in, the political weight of the work they're doing, the sociological structures that might be influencing their interpretations, the epistemic assumptions they're making when they treat bias as a thing that can be removed rather than an inherent feature of positionality; and histories, sociologists, cultural critiques etc. know how to handle data, to design tests and formulate clear prior hypotheses etc. when needed. Obviously, that's a lot of disciplines to know all at once, so it's probably impossible for one practitioner to keep track of all that information and theorising (certainly my statistical analysis skills are beyond rusty) but it's one of those reasons why it's useful to have large academic cross pollination rather than isolated or segmented disciplines (with physicists over here talking only to themselves and historians over here and so on)... Also a good reason to think about when technical terms are useful and when they're just opaque registers but that's a whole other topic.
Regarding climate science, when the default assumption (and the expectations created in grant applications) is that climate change is man-made, it's perfectly feasible to conclude that most of the scientific output is biased, if not fraudulent. Have you ever heard of groupthink?
Oh, ppl use science in the inquiry into arts subjective things? Kind of similar to how counting the angels on the head of a pin with math science, makes angels on pins "science". Psychology is a art, an inquiry into the subjective. Always predictability, testability, and replicability is not the SCIENCE realm of the arts. INQUIRY!
@@davidhoward4715 Why the Arts is pseudonymous with status seeking perhaps is because it's mostly about imagination and pretending, not doing and reality. The Arts preference seems to be status seek the trophy title of "science", which is a method of rigor outside of the Arts. Arts Inquiry, not science.
Sorry, but saying psychology is a science because psychologist use the scientific method is a cop out. The term science carries a lot of prestige and credibility these days, mostly due to the success stories in the hard sciences (material science, mech eng, physics, etc.) and subsequent advances in technologies which further increase people's standard of living. Most people don't care about truth, they only want gadgets to make them more comfortable. Scientists and engineers deliver gadgets, so they are rewarded with prestige. Social "sciences" have not delivered anything even close to that and, thus, dont't deserve the same level of admitation. Add to that the replication crisis in the social "sciences" and much of the credibility disappears almost instantly.
Saying psychology = science in consequence of its use of a method (the so-called scientific method -- loosely defined) is a pathetic talking point -- one that conflates necessary with sufficient conditions. It is a telling (and sad) comment on our educational system(s) that such an elementary logical mishap commonly take place during alleged scholarly discourse.
Not one of you understand what science even is and how it works. Qualitative analysis is science, but you folks would deny it. Chemistry has qualitative analysis, ergo it is not a science. That is what your arguments amount to. You don’t know what “science” is. You only latch onto some definition made up by Neil deGrasse Tyson and his ilk.
if this is the general opinion of scientists than we are doomed... if you think searching for a new nano application is more important than analysing human behaviour and finding ways so we can live together in peace and respect, than you are delusional and obviously dont fit in a peaceful society... get your priorities straight... otherwise what is the point of this all? every little silly thing you found out... for what? so you have your 5 minutes of fame just for the world to start ww3 and bomb ourselves out of existence? you really think your science is more important than humanity itself? arrogance at peak performance... you are the reason we are still stuck at status quo...
Scientific practice itself was not invented in the modern age where the language and nomenclature happened to be, likewise, neither was the fraud affecting the field; people tend to give language magical attributes such as certain powers of fruition, confusing discovery with invention.
The scientific method needs to be distinguish from scientific publications needs to be distinguish from the scientific community needs to be distinguished from the scientific industry. Equivocating with the word "science" is juvenile.
And finally, the soft sciences are not sciences at all. If they were, they would have built predictive, replicable models of human behavior and they have not.
I deny the climat science. CO2 is lagging indicator, not a pre indicator. Go read the papers on this subject and see how they have taken short timelines to make the data look to prove their conclusions, but looking at all the data co2 is past effect and humans have no effect.
Consult Thomas Sowells work. Authorities on one subject should NOT be consulted about another branch of scientific investigation. A specialist in anatomy cannot have worthwhile opinions on specialised geological problems , for instance. Many great men ,are ignorant of Climate history, but love to be consulted by reporters especially if they have a title and talk the world as if it had one climate which was stable before 1900.
Do they ??? Or is that a massive strawman. I have never once seen a single climate scientist dent that the climate has been changing for millions of years. Do you know why the climate has been changing for millions of year? Its because of fluctuations in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This is only a hunch, but if I had all the time in the world, I'd do the same analysis you mentioned in another video of psychology papers and their p values but apply it to dark matter research in physics. There's just too much incentive for physicists to report that if only we had a little more data or funding for a bigger telescope, we could uncover the mysteries of the universe. But at the same time, scientists not distracted by the false positive that dark matter likely is are confirming that modified gravity (MONDian dynamics) fits experimental data very well.
To continue on the climate theme. You say you are suspicious when you see paper that seems to overturn previous views on a subject. That is precisely what happened with the Mann Hockey Stick (MBH98). It whiped out the Medieval Warm Period in a stroke and without any other evidence presented. Now, it can be argued that later studies supported the MBH98 hockey stick. But no one peer reviewer or other scientist made any challenge at the time. The paper was published in Nature. It was only McIntyre - from outside of the climate science establishment - who made such a challenge. So a paper which overturned previous views on climate over the past 1,000 years became the headline act in the IPCC TAR without any challenge or questioning by any other climate science. Isn't that incredible?
i am intimately acquainted with bad weather over a longish period of time. spent a 30 year maritime career subject to the fickle scrutiny of various federal, local and state bureaucracies. i possess no phd, but i came up through the hawsepipe and was a licensed skipper of fish catcher processors for 20 years. i'm here to tell you that the data collection has holes (big ones) and baked in biases and occasional obvious corruption. the rest i leave to you guys, but i'm not freaking out. i would add that i think the doom shouting is scaring the kids and they are suiciding at an elevated rate as a result. you want to be part of that?
This is far removed from the point of the video and like many jerks on these comments you’re parroting your preferred pet alternative conspiracy/pseudoscience. Good for you.
I always go back to cosmology and areas like quantum mechanics and more generally theoretical physics. Area's where there is a lot of room for interpretation and 'lazy' science, In cosmology how much CMBR is from the big bang? All? None? We'll that would depend on how you 'feel'. BICEP 2 is a good example looking for a particular pattern in the CMB that would result from the light going through space for a very long time giving a polarization pattern due to faraday rotation. They did the research, and they FOUND that signature, got published in scientific American, and were waiting for their Nobel prize for finally 'proving' the big bang. Except that was not the case, and they used graphs from other research, I think the publish or perish ethos is also a problem, I would rather better science than more science. But if you have to publish X amount of papers quantity overtakes quality.
Sir: To answer your question, likely rhetorical, about scandals in movies and music; speaking as a professional musician, I would, have, and continue to seriously question the "system" of music and movies, due in no small part to those various scandals to which you so darkly alluded. And thus it is with "science". All institutions are inadequate, flawed, imperfect and incoherent. "Merit", if it even exists, and isn't some kind of chimera, is a very, very obscure and difficult thing to discern. Because of all that, and because of those frauds and various scandals, the ultimate efficacy of the "system" of science is unknowable, and therefore it's likely that many of the conclusions made by the institution of science are only as "true" as the system itself is effective.
Finding a fraudulent paper published in a scientific journal should give as much academic accolades as publishing a good paper. Since poking holes in a paper is much easier than producing your own, this would incentivise fraud hunters.
It really should.
Reproducing an un-reproduced paper should be as commendable as original research as well.
Climategate didn't do anything to Michael Mann. He actually took someone to court for defamation because he was called out of fraud. Mann lost the case because he never produced data to counter the claim.
I suppose that might create some discontent. You look into a research with your result being that it's correct but might still lose an opportunity to have research in the future with those people involved
@@tomlxyzWell, it would probably lead to emerging of a new class of sciencists - Verificators - who would be praised for well documented (un)successful replications and/or pointing out frauds, but not engaging in base science to prevent being in conflict of interest, as well having trouble to find collaboration…
One of the professors in my Uni wrote a paper, with an experiment that pointed towards disproving, I think a model of behavior in Psychology. Years later he found that the paper was cited in hundreds of scientific articles, as proof for the model that the paper found no evidence for. But the title could be misunderstood as being positive towards the model. So hundreds of researcher basically just read the title of his paper and cited it. Without even reading the abstract. Publish or perish science is awesome 👍👍👍
I have heard of this happening too!
The author of the video here, I’m sure he means well, but he is naïve about how good science is. There is so much fraud. This has been proven in other studies that look at research papers and then tried to duplicate them. Most of the time they can’t because of the fraud involved in the original paper.
For the author of this video to claim definitively that there is no problems with Dr. Fauci without having done any research about it at all, very disappointing. Fauci the quack has a long controversial history that even a cursory glance will identify, and it is clear that he is not a real researcher. He was in a powerful position controlling the hand out of so much money into scientific research that everybody felt they had to paint him with a bright review. Absolutely disgusting.
Comes down to this patronizing crummy video
I think the current practices and culture around social science journals are a bottleneck for this issue. I have seen many rejection letters sent out to colleagues on the grounds that research was "too derivative or repeating prior work". This coupled with the constant demand for novel findings, gatekeeping around theory, and the bizare insistence that we can only publish so much because of printing restraints in an era where most articles are read online: this all works to discourage replication and scrutiny in our publish or die world.
Rejecting research because it repeats prior work, that's a blatant violation of one of the most fundamental principles in scientific metodology: reproducability. The results of an experiment are not actually valid until they have been duplicated and comfirmed by another independent researcher/research team.
But who's going to do this vital validation when there's nothing in it for them?
Absolutely true and well put. I am a patient who has to do an enormous amount of medical research because I have a rare genetic disease that affects myself and my adult daughter, and had affected my late mother. I still have to ask doctors if they know of Ehlers Danlos, and half of them do not, and those that have heard of it, half of them don't even know what it is but they've heard the name. So we have to become experts. Only recently did I learn about predatory journals, and had to go in and comb out the few suspect articles that I had in a two year research project on the flawed treatment I was getting for my congestive heart failure that put my life in danger. Thank God I'm OK, and I changed my treatment on my own and I am doing fantastically better, but that's not my job or shouldn't be. We need a better system, I agree.
@@tessjuelthis is a great point, I don’t know if you guys know who BobbyBroccoli is, but he has a great series on scientific fraud, his videos on The Race for the New Elements which highlights the issue of the demand for novel findings.
Start a replication journal for psychology.
@@Mezog001 not only do I agree with you I believe that funding for replication research needs to be started in all the sciences. There needs to be a tax incentive to do so for institutions, and there needs to be a way to fine not only government tax money but other sources of money such as taxing certain industries that benefit from the research or from doing business within the field. It would take a long time and a lot of work but it's necessary I agree completely.
Human narcissistic, competitive nature, pride, greed, ext... . Money. Counting all of the above, hope is not a strategy! Thanks for the topic!
We have the yearning to say, "there is just a small number of fraudulent studies, and for the most part, the majority of studies are done by reputable, well-intentioned, ethical people." How much evidence are we going to have to face year after year before we accept the equal or skewed in the wedding direction, the likelihood that we have scientific study that is purposed for acquiring specific results rather that seeing what the true results are.
Fully agree -- particularly with the last sentence. We too often (particularly in the social sciences) of doing demonstrations, not tests of well-specified theoretic predictions.
what is the evidence you’re referring to here? yes, you can find what is essentially anecdotal evidence, many cases of individual people committing fraud, but as was stated in the video, science is a very collaborative and community based thing. the understanding of a particular field on a topic isnt something thats dictated by one or two hotshots who might have committed fraud; rather, it is based on the collective findings of the field with contributions by tons of different research teams, pieces published in many different journals, etc. even if someone commits fraud and their research points our understanding in a certain direction, their conclusions arent going to have a really negative impact on the field because other research teams will not be able to use these conclusions to prove their own ideas, and eventually theyll look elsewhere for conclusions to build their own work off of, which can be supported by real evidence. from what i have seen, there is no evidence of systematic fraud in which different researchers/labs/etc are all committing fraud all pointing in the same directions in terms of their conclusions. it is one thing to say “for any given scientist we should be skeptical of their conclusions because their research could be fraudulent” and a whole other thing to say “we shouldnt trust a given consensus of a respective field because of the possibility of scientific fraud.” evidence for the former, which as ive said there is plenty of, doesnt automatically count as evidence for the latter.
Much funding for Basic Science comes from the Government. Decades ago, typically the Government funded COMPETING studies at multiple institutions, this made fraud very difficult, but still major differences in answers were found based on initial assumptions. I have witnessed the funding of these competitive studies going away, sometimes with the “winning “ group, that with remaining funding, getting it merely based on political considerations. Without this competition & it makes it much easier to commit fraud or biased data.
the competition model sounds pretty good. i wonder why we did away with it
I was a newly hired to work in public health for a professor whom I greatly admired at the university of Minnesota who was working on studies in smoking in housing and smoking around babies. I was supposed to input on the computer information from questionares from residents in housing supposedly filled in by the residents. I noticed that the writing seemed to be the same in all the questionnaires in one batch and similar in a second group as if maybe 30 questionares filled out by two people. I went to the professor and asked if these questionnaires had been filled out by the residents or by 2 interviewers. I was told by the professor, the residents. I voiced my concern that only two different handwritings appeared in all the questionnaires. She did not seem concerned. After that I was asked to do tasks out of the office. I came back from one to find a letter on the printer firing me. I head of Eoidemiology took me into an office and verbally fired me. I had talked to a professor I knew in psychology before I was fired but after that did not report it because I felt dispondent in being fired and losing trust in an admired person.
J. Lester
Wow! What a sad story!! I’m so sorry this happened to you. I wonder if it would happen now.
8:00 - Cults exist. Some cults will go above and beyond to "prove" their theory right. It doesn't matter how many people are in them if they all have this shared belief. Just because there is a lot of them, doesn't mean it isn't possible they are using their shared belief as a starting point.
In the long run, honesty and accurate analyses are the only road to a successful career in science. Fudging results only produces short-term gains; just as you point out, the results won't replicate and your name will be sullied. The situation could be improved, though, by ensuring the motivation for scientists is to determine what is really going on, rather than the bias resulting from publication only of positive results, and counting the number of publications for career advancement, etc.
Fraud exists in most sectors. The question is WHY scientists feel the need/pressure to commit fraud. Advancement? Cash? Reputation?
Prestige, adulation, Ideology (eg communists), systems thinking (perfect systems versus messy data), peer pressure to conform with other results, compassion for colleagues (pressure to replicate their fraudulent results) , worries about the reputation of science overall, worries about future funding for the field ,
The reasons you gave of course and more. Financial gain for example. Or just plain simply; it’s their pay check. People tend to not mess with that. Even when they know it is not entirely the entire truth or at all. Science is totally controlled. The biggest reason is to hide God’s existence and His creation. And following that, Jesus Christ and His sacrifice.
Although, some “scientists” have proven a creator’s existence by accident. Others have found our Creator through their work. Though these stories are usually not promoted or just “hidden/suppressed”. There’s a lot of agenda’s involved in science for a long time now. They who rule us have always tried hiding God, His Word and His only begotten Son.
As for fraud in climate science I recommend reading Climate Models for the Layman by Dr Judith Curry. She is a climate scientist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech.
If you're concerned about fraudulent research making its way into the literature and would like to support the work of a group focused on its detection, please consider supporting Data Colada's Legal Defense team at www.gofundme.com/f/uhbka-support-data-coladas-legal-defense?+share-sheet&
From the gofundme.com page: Leif Nelson, Joe Simmons, and Uri Simonsohn are professors who together publish the Data Colada blog. In June 2023, they published a series of blog posts raising concerns about the integrity of the data in four papers co-authored by Harvard Business School (HBS) Professor Francesca Gino. They waited to publish these blog posts until after the HBS’s investigation concluded, with HBS placing Professor Gino on leave and requesting retractions for the four papers. In early August 2023, Professor Gino filed a lawsuit for defamation against Harvard University, and against Leif, Joe, and Uri personally, claiming 25 million dollars in damages. Defending oneself in court is time-consuming and expensive regardless of the merits of the lawsuit - as First Amendment lawyer Ken White put it to Vox , “The process is the punishment.” Targets of scientific criticism can thus use the legal system to silence their critics.
Many times science has been used to support several ideologies e.g. Trofim Lysenko.
💯
in Ukraine we even have a special word for that mess that was going on - лисенківщина (lysenkivshchyna)
Shortly after a US Presidential election, my two levels up boss walked into my lab and stated: “I don’t care how good your science is, if it doesn’t support the new administration’s agenda, your funding will be cut”.
@@KitYeeScott and one would not find it inconceivable that this Assoc. Prof. might have receive a similar word, when so much tax funded $$ are at stake.
In what part of this video is your comment related? It is unrelated.
@@dionysianapollomarx why my silly commentor Goebbels was noted as saying 'repeat it umpteen times and the stupid masses will believe it' but better yet go work in the real corporate world and see it first hand, you romantic swine are a dime a dozen, til you enter the real world and get your swtichblade out and stare at your wrist, with vain glory in your heart, we all weathered souls laugh at you as you take your life, for you had not, the will to live
Thank you so much for these two videos. I am not a scientist and I do not have a degree as a doctor, but I've had to do my own research into medical journals and articles because I, my mother, and then my daughter all had symptoms of several chronic conditions that did not make sense. I am turning 69 and I was only properly diagnosed with Ehlers-Danlos in 2008 at the age of 54, when my daughter was 28, and long after the passing of my mother who never knew of this. It is traumatizing to find out that I can't trust medical journals anymore. Now I must learn how to assess what is a predatory journal, what is bad science, what constitutes good research, and who to trust and when could they be trusted. For the past six years I've been under treatment for congestive heart failure, and I knew something was wrong, I knew the treatment was making me sicker and not doing what it was supposed to do. It took me years of researching my condition before I was able to figure out what was going on and to take steps to correct it. And then suddenly I find out about all this fraud and have to go back through and make sure that I hadn't accidentally included articles from predatory journals. Luckily I only found two. In the end it turned out that my assessment of the meta-data over the last decade or two in regards to my treatment was validated a year and a half ago by the American heart association and the American College of cardiology. We came to the same conclusion, I change my treatment, and I am doing so much better and my life is no longer at risk. But I had to do that research on my own, not my doctors, and they wouldn't change my treatment till I confronted them with the research that the AHA and ACC had done. If a patient or the parents of a child have to go to places like PubMed, Medline, and journals like the Lancet to find information they are not getting from their doctors, it is paramount that we be able to trust these sources because the downside of this fraud is death for people like myself and my daughter. The lack of scientific rigor and forthrightness, coupled with greed, is a danger to us all and puts all our lives at risk.
glad you're feeling better. fellow edser who has also guided my own treatment
@@emilysha418 hey there hon, thanks for the comment. It is a tough life we live, and thank you for the nod, it always helps. ❤️
Can you send me the citations for proper treatment of CHF?
@@RLantz-ke6xi it isn't a single citation, it really does depend upon the structure and nature of your congestive heart failure. It depends on whether or not it is left or right sided, what type, in what way your heart is failing, and causing what type of congestion, and whether or not you have preserved or reduced ejection from your heart and what part of the heart. Is there congestion in the lungs, is there congestion/edema in the peripherals and the abdomen, or is it around the heart, is there liver disease involved, and so forth. This is what I had to study. I also had to study how the heart and the blood flow through the kidneys affects the way the kidney perceives the need to either rid the body of sodium and fluid or to retain it. Then there's the whole thing with your endocrine system and how that comes into play as it did with me with the Hashimoto, and the development of a very specific type of edema called myxedema. Those are all the kind of things you have to take into consideration when you talk about it, plus things like absorption issues in the intestines, whether or not you have edema in the intestinal walls and whether or not you're getting what's called a therapeutic level of your diuretic, if you even need diuretic. Do you know any of these factors? This is why it took me six years of study and research into how it all plays together, but also how my special needs, and my special genetic disorders also play a role in all of this. The best I can tell you is a couple of things. Google predatory medical journals and learn about that so you know which open source journals are suspect and why. You need to find out whether or not you are retaining fluids, if so, where and why. You need to have kidney test done to find out what's going on with your kidneys and whether or not you have any kidney damage already because that will play in to what you need to do and what you don't need to do. For me I don't have kidney disease and I've been able to keep it that way. Congestive heart failure is a catch phrase that simply means your heart is not working to capacity and it's interfering or causing damage to the kidneys, thus causing the body to retain sodium and fluid which is called congestion. Sort of a chicken and egg scenario. What came first the damage to the heart, the damage to the thyroid, or the damage to the kidneys, or all three or combination there of. That's what you need to know and it's from there that you figure out how to best assess your treatment. But in a nutshell it's basically figuring out how to get what's called a therapeutic level of diuretic to your kidneys that they do not reject in order to pull fluid not only out of the bloodstream but out of the tissue. If you have any other edema issues such as a problem with your lymphatic system that changes the picture all together. It's not a simple answer. What can you tell me?
Thanks for this video. I have a physics PhD, so I like to think I have a firm grasp on experimental science. I’d like to add that I’ve worked on EPA weather station data. My issue with climate science isn’t that honest science isn’t being done, it’s that there are incentives for alarmism, and I believe this hurts the public well being for no reason. As you well know, falsifiability is a pillar of experimental science. Where is that with climate science? Physics experiments in tightly controlled environments are still subject to tons of uncertainties that need to be accounted for. The Earth’s climate is an enormously complex, non-linear system with certain poorly understood causes and effects that has literally been under direct observation for a blink of an eye on geologic time scales. Most people that have read this far will call me a “climate denier”. Obviously we should investigate the effects of industry on the atmosphere and try to at least be in control of it, but the fear monger ing is way out of hand. The planet’s ecosystems are in much more danger by our immediate actions than the planet warming by 0.2 degrees in the next 100 years. And has anyone considered the possibility that a slightly warmer temperature might be a good thing? Let me know when that paper gets published and gets some attention. It’s not about widespread fraud to me in this case, it’s about a field of scientific enquiry that has become political, and thus, shit.
Anyway, thanks for your efforts in these videos!
Hear ye hear ye!
I couldn't agree more!
How’s that PhD in climate physics served you? 🎉
@@dionysianapollomarx the techniques in data collection and analysis are the same as in physics.
@@dionysianapollomarx I'll show you mine if you show me yours. I'll also show you my Mensa score, just to prove that you're bringing a cap gun to a gunfight.
I made an argument for a historic trend I find scary. I fear we've entered the phase in science where the low hanging fruit has largely been plucked. When clear cut conclusions are increasingly scarce we need more patience for thinner statistical margins and grayer indications on significance. If so, then media needs to be more skeptical as society reacts more calmly to scientific reports. This generalization was highly criticized but without much to reasure me. I believe in science and offered my fear as an impetus to greater support for programs such as those you suggest. Thanks for your thoughtful approach.
Hold on let me check. f(w) = ((A @ w - B @ w)**2).sum() + (lmbda/2) * np.linalg.norm(w)**2
It says "Embrace the chaos". Lets go!
Not sure I agree. There's a huge amount of data in the world and, in my experience, it's becoming easier to answer interesting questions without having to run a single experiment. The problem is most scientists are trained in a rigid, cookbook tradition of statistics which is simply too inflexible for real-world use. Indeed, the problem may be that the internet and Big Data are making our statistical margins too thin - just because you have a p-value of 1/1x10^6 doesn't mean your result is interesting!
@@TheFartoholic Questions of imagined things can be answered with pretend answers. Pretend to fly. Reality isn't pretend.
Perhaps a part of the problem. Other salient issues include the absence of credible scientific theory backing empirical endeavors and the fact that we credential folk well beyond their abilities these days. For instance, in psychology we cannot even define (much less study) most of our key concepts -- e.g., self, consciousness, memory... Pretty pathetic and seriously disqualifying vis a vis the designation of scientific discovery.@@TheFartoholic
I watched the first video and thought he gave a balanced and fair analysis.
He was moving along nicely in this video.
Unfortunately his credibility was strained when he commented he did not see anthing in Fauci’s work or the climate change crowd that might make someone think there might be some misrepresentation going on.
We are a ways off on getting to the truth on covid, it’s origins, the vaccine data, etc.
And with some honest serious questions and Fauci’s own emails and misrepresentations to Congress, to give him
a pass is simply absurd
You are hilarious
Thanks!
Yes - that was my conclusion as well. I think though this may just be a subtle artifact of the intrinsic bias the author has versus our intrinsic biases. He is willing to trust/give these people a pass because he seems to disbelieve or is unaware that manufactured consensus is a real concern in altering the credibility of the scientific community.
A big example of this would be the Great Barrington Declaration and Collins/Fauci conspiring with the media to crush any competing scientific hypotheses and create manufactured consensus. Policy driven "science" can quickly turn into institution driven confirmation bias --- a real threat to getting at the truth.
Dear Eric VanMan - I encourage you to do some more research on this effect and be more skeptical of consensuses that you are tempted to ascribe to without understanding motivators driving the consensuses.
@@dionysianapollomarx Are you still laughing?
The only problem is they are far from the only data sources. The total work on climate and COVID is international and from many institutions and many, many totally unrelated scholars. Even if Fauci were proven a complete hack, it would change absolutely nothing about all that other data, and that's really what you need to look at. How much of the _total corpus_ from the global enterprise in those domains is solid, how much is fraud, and is there any pattern to the fraud that would substantially alter the conclusions?
7:58 -- The evidence of climate fraud is overwhelming -- starting with Michael Mann's e-mail in which he stated that the results of his findings had to suit the goals of the IPCC.
No, it's not. Whatever evidence of fraud in climate science you can come up with is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of good data that supports what the vast majority of climate scientists are reporting. You are doing both science and humanity a disservice by continuing to flog this dead horse.
No it's not lol. Even if you completely disregard those findings and any findings of the IPCC, there is still overwhelming evidence that it is happening.
@@TheNotSoFakeNews -- Every single day claims are made about global warming and every single day those claims are exposed as lies. The rise in sea level was supposed to drown the Maldive islands; instead, there's been a building boom there. The ice on the Arctic Sea is melting. The proof? Satellite photos taken during the summer. The IPCC has repeatedly predicted exponential warming ... which never occurs. If summers are hot, that's proof of global warming; if summers are cold, that's also proof of global warming. NASA has been repeatedly caught altering temperature records. The fraud and lies go on and on.
@@TheNotSoFakeNewsyes … overwhelming evidence climate fraud is happening. Tony Heller exposes examples of how climate data has been manipulated by the climate alarmists whose careers depend on it.
Example medical mistake: Digoxin was medicine of choice for heart failure. It was claimed to strengthen heart muscle fibers.
It went on as such for decades until in the 80s it was proved to work only on healthy heart but not on failed heart due to stretched fibers. It still works as anti-arrhythmic and this helped those cases associated with arrhythmias leading to wrong conclusion.
Ingham's Chicken paid off a few doctors to promote it's product as the healthy heart alternative, similar to the tobacco lobby, the wheat board, etc, when the unssupecting want a return on their investment, business does what it must.
In Romania we have a jurnalist called Emilia Sercan who exposes plagiarism in the Romanian Academic space.
I think when an organization or community leads and admits mistakes and fraud within their circles, it adds to public credibility. Nobody and no community is perfect. I think reasonable people would expect someone somewhere at sometime to cross a community standard
Tony Heller does videos on climate change.
Maybe more of us could look at that.
Why use ground temperature to tell people that there is a global boiling???
Who did meteorology in any level knows that data is collected from a box 2 meters above the ground.
This is only one example of data usage in advancing of the agenda.
The climate talk started long time ago but now is reaching absurdity
You mean Steve Goddard? www.desmog.com/steven-goddard/
literally every meteorologist knows about data collection from ASOS/METAR stations. Instrumentation is a requirement for your bachelor's. we collect temperature data at 2 meters because that is where people are, not 2,000 ft in the air.
Is that the _only_ temperature data collected, though? How do you know that? I mean, high-altitude balloons have been a thing for a very long time, just for one thing that comes to mind off the top of my head.
Thanks for your intelligent discussion of that issue.
Regarding climate science and Fauci/CDC-led science: I suggest listening to Dr Judith Curry on the climate science side and Prof Vinay Prasad or Prof Jay Bhattacharya on the „CDC- science“ conduct may help reawaken your critical view on those two issues - rather than, with due respect, just making straw man arguments.
You come to think that psychology is not a science, leaving science fraud apart, because a) there are different schools of psychology and I get that they, in part at least, contradict each other and this is confusing, and b) at least when it comes to some areas of research, it is doubtful that a study two decades ago, lets say in Japan, would apply today in Portugal.
I think data is more malleable than the general public would like to believe, and the truth usually many orders of magnitude more complex than even our more advanced models. In that environment people with conflicts of interests often draw whatever conclusions are most convenient for them.
Of course we should trust science, but scientists are another matter entirely. .
We should have a high, but not absolute level of confidence on settled science, and almost no confidence in unsettled scientific theories.
How do you think this problem differs in social vs stem? I believe it's more prevalent in social sciences on top of far greater possibility of data manipulation and researcher's believes impact.
The arts is a inquiry into subjective things, you can't have a scientific result. Always predictable, testable, and replicable is science. The M in steam is a arts inquiry, not a science.
Using science to study feeling, doesn't make feeling any less subjective.
@@tyronewashington230 m stands for math in stem.
Science has become a devisive and political instrument to cudgel the hoi polloi into submission of state policy, not unlike religious bodies hold power.
A check of Retraction Watch will show that problem is rampant in STEM, where there is a lot more money involved.
As you get into fields where peer review is harder I believe this trend increases. In math you can still have people making mistakes but intentionally publishing incorrect proofs and surviving peer review is quite slim compared to say chemistry. And even chemistry is miles easier for peer review compared to social sciences or medicine.
Most of the time, in competitive arenas, the people most likely to cheat are the ones who have the skill and position to have actually done it correctly. The top athletes dope, the best e-sports players cheat, the most prestigious academics fake data... Most often this happens because of image pressure from the community at large. These individuals feel safe and self righteous, like they already deserve the accolades that come with whatever the accomplishment is. So they take it... Seems like a feedback mechanism between what society expects from a journal and modern academia, and the pressures of academics to give those journals "heros" to worship. Maybe that should be what changes first. Change the behavior and the personality will follow.
Schadenfreude?
Are we setting people up to fail on purpose, so that we can point and laugh as they fall?
@@Robert_McGarry_Poems it's not schadenfreude when one has looked up to a doyen of their field and invested time, money and belief, to find them an absolute fraud, a la Lance Armstrong. I have worked with an olympic cyclist, he told they are all on drugs, he suffered major hormonal issues post performance, they all are duping the populace, I have visceral hatred for these types, they are judas goats that lead the well meaning to a similar path, 'cause everybody else does it.
Suggesting that the social sciences are sciences commits the fallacy of composition.
It does not. You don’t even know what many of the social sciences consist of. You just assume what it’s about. There’s a lot of qualitative analysis in chemistry, ergo that part of chemistry is not science. Ergo chemistry is not science. Stop it.
Social sciences are not sciences in virtue of the tenets of science (e.g., objectivity and quantification). @@dionysianapollomarx
@@dionysianapollomarx Chemistry: the Law of Conservation of Mass, the Law of Definite Proportions, the Law of Multiple Proportions. Psychology? *crickets* The soft sciences have yet to build universals necessary to employ the scientific method. They are the equivalent of pre-Euclidean geometry and going backwards.
I applaud you for both of these videos. Your honesty if apparent and very appreciated. I have two inquiries concerning 1) a 2009 hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia email scandal 'climate gate', and 2) what your thoughts are regarding 'climate modeling' as being considered as a legitimate or illegitimate part of the scientific method, as well as its potential for fraud or abuse?
🙌
Thank you gratefully for these videos, for your honesty and the effort to make them!
There was a time when "science" was called by a different name. Natural Philosophy or simply philosophy is what " scientists " did in bygone eras. Philosophy is a quest for the truth. Whether the method is human reason by itself or human reason (also called hypothesis) with experimental attempts to verify the hypothesis. The fact remains " science " is based on human reason first of all. Using experimental data to back it up is almost an afterthought. In modern times we like to pat ourselves on the back about how far we've come in using objectivity to support our theories. But let's be honest. If human reason can be wrong about its conclusions . . . then it must be obvious science itself can also be wrong. Whether the " wrong " happens because of (1) unprofessional carelessness or (2) deliberate fraud is almost coincidental. Whenever we put our complete trust in something humans have established as " RELIABLE " . . . we set ourselves up for disappointment. In this case " science."
Yes -- scientific technology (like the one we currently are on) is a clear demonstration of the fickle and near-arbitrary nature of science. Good points!
Stanford Prison Experiment: Zimbardo's Famous Study
In 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues set out to create an experiment that looked at the impact of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The Stanford Prison Experiment, also known as the Zimbardo Prison Experiment, went on to become one of the best-known (and controversial)
He hiton me.
And his Brown Bread Study.
And Theranos.
The Chemical Engineering professor, Channig Robertson.
That was by Bem @ 1965@@leannevandekew1996
Was this experiment faked?
I have heard about the experiment, but I had not heard it was faked, if it was…
Excellent videos on individual driven scientific fraud! Since you live in Queensland Australia and experienced the most stringent and draconian lock down policies "informed by science" ---- could you kindly make a video with your thoughts on systemic or institutionalized science fraud exhibited by governmental agencies (cherry picking data etc. to support a pre-selected narrative) and the influence of big business pharmaceutical companies/government funding agencies in directing scientific exploration (and ignoring other areas which are less profitable).
🙌
I doubt he would validate what you are insinuating.
The validity of a policy, and validity of science, are two different things. Policies are actually not science at all, they are a politician's reaction to their (almost always not very informed) interpretation of science. Lockdown was obviously far from an ideal policy for many reasons, but that COVID was _not_ as a matter of fact a mass-disabling disease is not one of those reasons. Note the vast majority of COVID research is and was not ordered by a politician, and is ongoing all over the world even absent of politicians caring much about the issue at all these days. And the picture is _not_ getting rosier. The opposite ... it's indicting the apathy we've come to, as children and others slowly lose brain function due to neurological damage from the virus infecting neurons in repeated infection after infection because people's upset at lockdowns has become generalized to opposition to even far less obtrusive but much more effective measures like masking and especially improved indoor ventilation and air filtration in densely-peopled indoor settings like classrooms.
One of the first instances of this was Sir Ernst Haeckel
The phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” was coined by Ernst Haeckel in 1866 and for many decades was accepted as natural law. Haeckel meant it in the strict sense: that an organism, in the course of its development, goes through all the stages of those forms of life from which it has evolved.
Called the Great BioGenetic Law however he was caught modifying the original woodcut of a collogue and drawing in things that were not their, modifying things that were there to enhance his ideas for grants, and was called before a college court of inquiry (basically and ethics review) where he say " I would be remissed accept all my other collogues are doing the same thing. We have known for 100 years it was false but because it was easily handed to a student as proof of Evolution everyone looks the other way.
I don't "believe" because I understand the scientific method.
I also understand why the word 'science' is often used for marketing purposes, which I did study.
We each live in other little silos. We hate being confronted by contrary (not contrarian) evidence.
Maybe you should go see what people like Dr. John Campbell have to say on the topic you "believe" in. He sure had to confront contrary to the narrative facts. Bur, you were told to hate people like him. Hatred is the instant highway to feel superior and righteous.
There's also this world famous cardiologist Peter McCullough, MD I would recommend.
I could recommend more, but I'm hungry
I love your videos! Critical thinking is necessary. By addressing some issues in your field, you invite researchers to be aware of fraudulent research. Your videos invite them to committ to transparency and foster truth in Psychology amd other fields.
Thank you so much! I’m glad you said this because it was my ultimate motivation for making these videos. :)
It doesn't seem to be widely known that "soft" science does the same things with data that "hard" science does. I got help from the mathematics dept. when analyzing the data for my thesis in applied linguistics. Definitely not true in all cases that scholars in soft science assume whatever they want to prove, read literature, and cherry pick whatever they need to support their preferred position. To really make a point even in soft science, you will need to collect data.
Would you say that in some cases that privacy regulations like FERPA and IRB protocols are used as a firewall against inquiry into the validity of the data or the accuracy of the figures that have been extrapolated? "Sorry, I can't let you see the raw data - it's confidential!"
You should add Dr Elizabeth Bik to the list. And Justin Pickett.
What are the reporting requirements for said 1000's of scientists in the climate field? I have heard that that many scientists do not agree but are not reported.
unfortunately video views get high only if it contain direct critics to personalities, organizations or negative review in general. I remarked this pattern in many science related channel or the one that offer laser focus topics, Unfortunately many rest underrated because they didn' t follow some over-hyped news
This was a very nice, thoughtful response. I'm glad that the last video blew up so that more people can be exposed to this channel, even if it brings a few inevitable trolls. Keep up the good work and don't get discouraged :)
Can you please follow this up with an Update!!! Please share your thoughts on the issue of the Xerox algorithms being blamed for years of data seeming to be manipulated. Pictures and even numbers were being skewed by the machines.
Astoundingly, journal acceptance and publication is not subject to the scientific method. Human bias is huge. Eliminating it requires strict adherence to scientific method which including double blind cross over testing. Papers submitted for publication should not include the names of the authors. This would eliminate bias towards famous authors and against unknown authors. Also the reviewers should not collaborate. Each reviewer should act alone. Finally, papers that are created obviously fraudulent, only to test the reviewers, should be regularly released
allowing a regular publication of the effectiveness of the review process.
John Edser
Independent Researcher
7:06
I think it is impossible to get every single lab/researcher in a field to go on with something that is fake, but we can get something like a significant amount of labs/researchers just "going with the flow" and validating fake results, like LK-99 for example there were a 2 labs saying they also made the material and that it was "somewhat legit" for example. However stopping doing science as a process to create/find knowledge is just silly. Academics should try to make a better job in weeding out the "bullshitters" though, imo ^^'
It’s not a conspiracy in the classical sense. It’s a distributed ideology within the “scientific” community. They believe they should fake data in the name of “the greater good”. Suppressing information refuting climate change, ignoring HBD science because it’s “racist” etc
one cant know everything, we trust 'cause we must, experience the failure of a large structure where the left hand knows not what the right is doing from above but many below do, and know it's in their best interest to keep silent lest jeopardise ones own interest, knowing whistle blowing is a worse end.
How is LK-99 an example of "a significant amount of labs/researchers going with the flowand validating fake results"? A vast majority of the scientific community were immediately skeptical of the LK-99 paper. That seems to be the opposite of what you were insinuating.
@@brendanmetivier511 he's obviously never worked in the real corporate world of daily shananigans where sociopathic short term gains are the norm and loose lips sink ships and jeopardise paying down mortgage debt, if these people knew what I did with the food they eat let alone the policy they felatio, they'd be mortified.
I disagree with likening it to sexual predators in the movie industry and not watching movies because of it. The direct analogy to that would be sexual predation in a lab or publishing context, and if it was by the largest publisher in the field, you might very well question the authenticity of everything ever published in that field.
I agree entirely, a professional scumbag is not the same as some who is professional in their line of work, but a scumbag.
It's very sad that in every corner of society ans academics, the people who are working to change things for the better are met with push back, defunding, and ostracism.
Did you seriously say you have no doubts or questions about covid science or climate science, can you truly say that with a straight face now who's not being honest I realise you don't want them to target you, but you could have worded things better.
Personally, I have pushed movies out of my life because of the degeneracy that characterizes the culture of Hollywood.
The problem here is that Psychology is not science.
hollywood is satanic. sin is serious. find Jesus & repent
The degeneracy of Hollywood culture? We can assume that you are a Trump supporter. Do you approve of the death threats against Dr Fauci?
FYI, "replicate" unfortunately popularized by Star Trek the Next Generation, means to rebuild from the ground up or recreate from scrap. I think the term you're looking for is "duplicate", which was in fashion and use prior to 1989.
Thanks for your thoughtful videos. Checked out a channel you mentioned in this video and your content is much more valuable than that one. Keep up your good work.
1907 Freud psychosexual confabulation resulted in psychoanalysis, Erikson childhood development theory and now clinical psychology.
Critism can be a useful thing if one has integrity. I once heard a business man in course i took say that tax audits should be and should be a good thing as they taxpeople help with filing system and making sure documents align with law. So if you're legal and have integrity this is good!
Our social organizations are so ill defined and hardly inclusive of actual stakeholders. But thankfully more and more examples beyoind the binary capitalism, socialism,communism structures are appearing if one looks for it!
Academia stills has some major issues to deal with 😅
OSF certification would be a great way to value it and a valid thing to fund if you want them to get to your paper faster.
They may not be committing fraud but are they refusing to release the data to allow closer scrutiny?
ThatChemist here on TH-cam has done some fun case studies on obviously problematic published papers, including one about using “banana water” to some end
Follow the money
Publishing a paper seems to hardly matter at all. As science isn't dogmatic, it doesn't matter if a paper's from a world famous scientist or a no name amateur. Peer review and independently replicating experiments/results is what roots out most bias and fraud. The scientific method isn't perfect, but it is the most reliable method for understanding how reality actually works.
Thank you for this excellent presentation. One thing I would have liked to see is the impact of high dimensionality of the subject space on replicability. I.e. the number of confounding variables, resulting in a need for large sample sizes and design to experimental power. In psychology, biology, and medicine, this drives up the cost of experiments as well as the likelihood of fraud, cherry-picking, and unreplicatable results. The funding sources in these fields ought to pay more attention to the experimental design. However, a certain fraction of the population are risk takers who believe they will never be caught. Even in physics, with far fewer variables than psychology, we had Henrik Schon.
The problem with we human is that when we are way way above others in term of intelligence, academic achievement, personal wealth, power, we human would tend to be arrogant, and think that we are invincible.... Just like the people trying to build the tower of Babel.....
What can you say about "Gain of function"?
Not much. I haven’t seen anything compelling about it since the Washington Post investigated Rand Paul’s claims.
Thank you for this video. I’m annoyed that the same jerks trying to get a rise out of you are also here.
Those people are called REAL scientists.
No ,the problem is it’s much too easy to do fake,peer reviewed research.About 10 years ago the editor for the Lancet expressed his concern that as many as 50% of the articles he reviews could have some element of falsified or fabricated data.
Thanks. I was wondering if you'd reply to some of the harsher criticisms. I'm glad you did. I hear it a lot online: "psychology is not a science." People have become quite cynical about a lot of things, including this. Not surprising, given the history of psychology being looked down on as "not a real science" and now the replication crisis. I can see their point, but I don't like broad dismissive generalizations of an entire field. To me (retired psychologist), psychology is both art and soft science, depending on what subdiscipline you're talking about. After all, psychology isn't a unitary thing; it's composed of many different subdisciplines, some of which are more "scientific" than others. For instance, imo, personality psychology is only marginally scientific, whereas intelligence testing or neuropsychological testing is more so. // Just off the cuff, I think the scientific status of psychology is weakened by the fact that 1) the human mind is incredibly complex, and our experiments are so crude/simplistic; 2) the mind is not susceptible to reductionist dissection, which many sciences depend on; and 3) what interests us is mostly internal experience, not external behavior, yet science is limited to the publicly observable, so we have to try to grasp the interior by looking at the exterior, which is fraught with problems. // Anyhow, thank you for the video.
When that filed produces beneficial, replicable, and predictive results, we'll talk. Until then it's very expensive nonsense
there are many simple facts about psychology... every behaviour like defending oneself, being triggered etc is based in psychology... we know that parents play a big role in a childs development... you tell me all these information is nonsense? not repeatable? are you stupid or something?
8:15: That's actually not at all hard to imagine (though fraud has nothing to do with it). It happens in science all the time that a scientific consensus turns out to have been entirely wrong, or wrong in some important respects, because of a theoretical paradigm that findings were interpreted within, which later was rejected or superseded. I don't think climate change denialists will be able to get much mileage out of this fact (on the most basic level, we're talking here about a relatively straightforward application of basic physics, which itself in turn went through several paradigm shifts without a change that would matter to the result of the calculation in question), let alone COVID conspiracy theorists (the COVID vaccine and social distancing measures are now the most widely and extensively tested medical interventions in history, and the results are rock solid). But it is still true that scientists as a group are often wrong. Indeed, that's a feature of how science works, not a bug.
'Trust the science'.
Question science!
Yes, but understand it very thoroughly first. E.g. if you challenge a vaccine as being a "gene therapy" in a way that shows you don't even understand what a gene therapy really is, your challenge is "not even wrong". The thing that gets me annoyed with a lot of people who are outside a field of science questioning research in that field (those who ARE expert in it questioning it is different) is that so many criticisms seem to be rooted in basic errors like that one. You can't critique properly what you don't even understand ... even if it _could_ be critiqued.
As human beings the innate obligation each of us shares is to truth. It seems we are born in relationship with truth, as evidenced with the sincerity of infants.
Whether or not individuals as adults recognize such obligation is is what makes room for the honest scientist or the fraudulent one.
Reminds me of an article I read about Darwin`s theory of natural selection where the writer pointed out that people did n`t jump straight in because it was popular,some were convinced because it explained the evidence they were studying but the real push was from lots of researchers who did n`t want to believe it and went out into the world searching for evidence to prove it false.Apparently there have now been thousands of failed challenges.
I don't think that's true. There are scientists who disagree with natural selection, but they are dismissed and ignored because Darwinism has become dogma.
Before we can develop solutions for limiting scientific fraud, don't we need to first determine the "motivators" for conducting the fraud?
And What of Karen Kingston?
Thank you for this.
1. Whew I just found you + subbed & was worried from the thumbnail you were going to be anti (legitimate) investigation or deny it's been a problem. So glad I can stay subbed! Thanks. I agree with your ethical + intellectual stance on data + data-interpretation fraud & I look forward to more from the channel.
2. My family is mostly very conservative (I broke their hearts with my rampant progressivism + respect for expertise instead of "common sense" gut-takes), so they're very low-information with popular science conversation & are hostile towards expertise & and to be anti-curiosity. Those family members like to use these scandals as "gotchas" intended to discredit the entire enterprise of science, but I've replied this is science --- self-correcting, working as intended --- & replication/dis-proving ingrained practices aren't properly funded, supported, or structured, which I interpret as a current problem in science + academia management/administration/public support, not a problem of "Science". We should expect fraud, we should expect to catch some bad results, we should expect better models of understanding to emerge through revision + replication processes, & we should expect our minds to change with evidence. A whole field/set of roles has emerged + is growing with new generations of academics + science grads incoming & we're going to keep seeing positive changes across the sciences.
3. Contemplating this stuff made me realize that I have not heard how or whether the American Psychological Association ever came to terms with the very visible, higher-up academic colleagues in APA leadership who went to work for the US military (+ perhaps private military contractors?) during America's GWOT era & worked alongside military colleagues to "supervise" &/or develop torture regimens, particularly in Guantanamo (but perhaps also at documented Black Sites?) from that part of the American GWOT efforts. There was a loose movement of psychologists + academics + students that opposed psychology being used to punish or influence but esp they believed torture was a line the field should collectively refuse to cross. They were more underground voices for a few years, that formalized into a confrontation at an APA meeting (early 2010s? I think??) between colleagues who felt psychologists who'd contributed to torture had broken with the larger community & they asked APA leadership for a formal statement of opposition to torture, & investigating members who were involved in military-type work with prisoners/detainees, & if they were found to have chosen to participate, expelling those. I'd love an overview + update on where all this went. If anywhere. One of the American presidential nominee candidates is a lawyer who allegedly participated in torture at Guantanamo, so there may be an element of timeliness to the topic, too.
4. Would love a history of Canadian university McGill's unethical psych experiments & how/whether they fixed that tendency in their dept. That needs a book written about it but I'd settle for an overview from an informed source.
5. Thanks! Best wishes to anyone who read this! 💐
Thanks for all your comments. I'm going to look into the McGill stuff you mention. And I do want to deal with APA/torture stance in a future video!
@@socialneuro Thanks for reading my very long comments, you obv gave me much food for thought. Re: McGill: I was trying to stay away from potentially "hot button" language, but to narrow your search, McGill had an era of psychedelic investigation & it had an era of experimentation with little or no informed consent & as a layperson I've never been able to understand if these are overlapping, the same, or competing claims. I haven't been able to source the "informed consent" part so it could've been inflated so within norms of the era; maybe an overview of how "informed consent" as a concept evolved into current best practices in psychology is more appropriate. But I am curious how McGill changed its psych dept culture both going into & coming out of that body of research.
Aw, apologies for wind-bagging again. As mentioned, I'll watch whatever you make, it'll all be interesting. Thanks for going beyond your current professional + life duties to take time + effort presenting psychology in a public-facing space.
I listened to your talk in full. Good talk.
You need to be strong enough to endure blowback. This is rare. Go back and listen again to Brett Weinstein. Courageous, honest, precise. And for this? Demonized and demonetized.
I think there should be open research platforms and how to allocate resources in those platforms, how to avoid fraud, how to better the platforms in general should be a topic of research. The systematization and optimization of science itself should be a topic of research. This would influence everything, from new legislation to safeguard intellectual property to the publishing of null results and inconclusive results and the acknowledgement of these as important science too. Edit: oops, I think people are already doing that. I just reached the final portion of your video.
Hi, wonder if you would please do a portrait study of Dr. Harry Harlow and his primate research? Thank you.
That’s a great idea! I even met some of Harlow’s monkeys decades later, where they were living in retirement at a primate center in California. Look for this in the next month or so.
.
I’m just a simple man but old enough to know that fraudsters are everywhere. And that the longer they have done it, the better they are at doing it. We all fail in many ways. It doesn’t surprise me but confirms what I already suspected of all sons of Adam. In the Bible’s last chapter, it describes a glorious place where no one lies. Come Lord Jesus!
With regards to systemic fraud, I think you're right that individual fraud is more the issue. On the systemic level it seems like societal biases and narratives tend to get more baked into certain frameworks, which can lead large groups of researchers off on blind alleys. You can see this with how long it took Burt to be called out for example. While I'm sure more recent work has built on it I found Lewington, Kamin and Rose's breakdown of twin studies in the era (Not in Our Genes 1984) compellingly argued that Burt wasn't caught out because there was this large body of researchers generating similar interpretations of data, even if there's were more due to weighted study design than outright fraud (While their works a bit old Jay Joseph's The Trouble with Twin Studies 2015 and Viney's Getting the Measure of Twins 2016 in the Edinburgh Guide to Critical medical humanities lead me to believe that twin studies still fall foul of many of these ingrained assumptions [and I've also been subject to twin studies since I was born, hence my interest since I started to notice these high estimates of heritability popping up in every press release we got]).
I wouldn't call this in any way equivalent to fraud, I don't think it's intentional, but since the practice of science is always a social event taking place in an ongoing society, I do think systemic issues can work their way in (even when tests are performed all over the world, the economic structure of universities tends to export specific kind of logic as we can see in some of the replication issues with body language studies) and I think that's useful to breach as a context for how these fraud cases manage to hide (because people are often less critical of science that cuts an expected way. Because Burt was saying that things were highly heritable to an audience of scientists who wanted to hear that, his data was treated with less scepticism than someone like Kamin who was arguing that the study design of twin studies was fundamentally flawed).
I think it's one of those reasons why it's useful to have cross disciplinary work so scientists know the history of the fields they're in, the political weight of the work they're doing, the sociological structures that might be influencing their interpretations, the epistemic assumptions they're making when they treat bias as a thing that can be removed rather than an inherent feature of positionality; and histories, sociologists, cultural critiques etc. know how to handle data, to design tests and formulate clear prior hypotheses etc. when needed. Obviously, that's a lot of disciplines to know all at once, so it's probably impossible for one practitioner to keep track of all that information and theorising (certainly my statistical analysis skills are beyond rusty) but it's one of those reasons why it's useful to have large academic cross pollination rather than isolated or segmented disciplines (with physicists over here talking only to themselves and historians over here and so on)... Also a good reason to think about when technical terms are useful and when they're just opaque registers but that's a whole other topic.
Regarding climate science, when the default assumption (and the expectations created in grant applications) is that climate change is man-made, it's perfectly feasible to conclude that most of the scientific output is biased, if not fraudulent. Have you ever heard of groupthink?
and most astronomers assume acentrism
Simple- peer review- no establish science, consensus is not scientific
Oh, ppl use science in the inquiry into arts subjective things? Kind of similar to how counting the angels on the head of a pin with math science, makes angels on pins "science". Psychology is a art, an inquiry into the subjective. Always predictability, testability, and replicability is not the SCIENCE realm of the arts. INQUIRY!
You know nothing about science, do you?
@@davidhoward4715 Why the Arts is pseudonymous with status seeking perhaps is because it's mostly about imagination and pretending, not doing and reality. The Arts preference seems to be status seek the trophy title of "science", which is a method of rigor outside of the Arts.
Arts Inquiry, not science.
On the contrary. He is spot on. What do you actually know? I am a prof of philosophy and a psychologist (U of Calif)@@davidhoward4715
Dont know if its just my headphones, but there's such a high pitched annoying noise in the background of this video...
Strange! I apologise. I hadn’t heard anyone mention it. I hope it doesn’t appear in any of my other videos!!
The Science Alliance against Bullshit Compliance.
Sorry, but saying psychology is a science because psychologist use the scientific method is a cop out. The term science carries a lot of prestige and credibility these days, mostly due to the success stories in the hard sciences (material science, mech eng, physics, etc.) and subsequent advances in technologies which further increase people's standard of living.
Most people don't care about truth, they only want gadgets to make them more comfortable. Scientists and engineers deliver gadgets, so they are rewarded with prestige.
Social "sciences" have not delivered anything even close to that and, thus, dont't deserve the same level of admitation. Add to that the replication crisis in the social "sciences" and much of the credibility disappears almost instantly.
Saying psychology = science in consequence of its use of a method (the so-called scientific method -- loosely defined) is a pathetic talking point -- one that conflates necessary with sufficient conditions. It is a telling (and sad) comment on our educational system(s) that such an elementary logical mishap commonly take place during alleged scholarly discourse.
Not one of you understand what science even is and how it works. Qualitative analysis is science, but you folks would deny it. Chemistry has qualitative analysis, ergo it is not a science. That is what your arguments amount to. You don’t know what “science” is. You only latch onto some definition made up by Neil deGrasse Tyson and his ilk.
if this is the general opinion of scientists than we are doomed... if you think searching for a new nano application is more important than analysing human behaviour and finding ways so we can live together in peace and respect, than you are delusional and obviously dont fit in a peaceful society... get your priorities straight... otherwise what is the point of this all? every little silly thing you found out... for what? so you have your 5 minutes of fame just for the world to start ww3 and bomb ourselves out of existence? you really think your science is more important than humanity itself? arrogance at peak performance... you are the reason we are still stuck at status quo...
Scientific practice itself was not invented in the modern age where the language and nomenclature happened to be, likewise, neither was the fraud affecting the field; people tend to give language magical attributes such as certain powers of fruition, confusing discovery with invention.
The scientific method needs to be distinguish from scientific publications needs to be distinguish from the scientific community needs to be distinguished from the scientific industry. Equivocating with the word "science" is juvenile.
Also the replication crisis going unaddressed in this video is negligent
And finally, the soft sciences are not sciences at all. If they were, they would have built predictive, replicable models of human behavior and they have not.
it is far beyond this one scandal.
“P” hacking is a thing.
Being “wakefielded” is a thing.
I deny the climat science. CO2 is lagging indicator, not a pre indicator. Go read the papers on this subject and see how they have taken short timelines to make the data look to prove their conclusions, but looking at all the data co2 is past effect and humans have no effect.
Consult Thomas Sowells work. Authorities on one subject should NOT be consulted about another branch of scientific investigation. A specialist in anatomy cannot have worthwhile opinions on specialised geological problems , for instance. Many great men ,are ignorant of Climate history, but love to be consulted by reporters especially if they have a title and talk the world as if it had one climate which was stable before 1900.
Do they ??? Or is that a massive strawman. I have never once seen a single climate scientist dent that the climate has been changing for millions of years.
Do you know why the climate has been changing for millions of year? Its because of fluctuations in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This is only a hunch, but if I had all the time in the world, I'd do the same analysis you mentioned in another video of psychology papers and their p values but apply it to dark matter research in physics. There's just too much incentive for physicists to report that if only we had a little more data or funding for a bigger telescope, we could uncover the mysteries of the universe. But at the same time, scientists not distracted by the false positive that dark matter likely is are confirming that modified gravity (MONDian dynamics) fits experimental data very well.
I wish I knew a physicist to ask about this. Sounds so interesting!
To continue on the climate theme. You say you are suspicious when you see paper that seems to overturn previous views on a subject. That is precisely what happened with the Mann Hockey Stick (MBH98). It whiped out the Medieval Warm Period in a stroke and without any other evidence presented. Now, it can be argued that later studies supported the MBH98 hockey stick. But no one peer reviewer or other scientist made any challenge at the time. The paper was published in Nature. It was only McIntyre - from outside of the climate science establishment - who made such a challenge. So a paper which overturned previous views on climate over the past 1,000 years became the headline act in the IPCC TAR without any challenge or questioning by any other climate science. Isn't that incredible?
Love to know your thoughts on Dr Christopher Palmer's book "Brain Energy".
i am intimately acquainted with bad weather over a longish period of time. spent a 30 year maritime career subject to the fickle scrutiny of various federal, local and state bureaucracies. i possess no phd, but i came up through the hawsepipe and was a licensed skipper of fish catcher processors for 20 years. i'm here to tell you that the data collection has holes (big ones) and baked in biases and occasional obvious corruption. the rest i leave to you guys, but i'm not freaking out.
i would add that i think the doom shouting is scaring the kids and they are suiciding at an elevated rate as a result. you want to be part of that?
This is far removed from the point of the video and like many jerks on these comments you’re parroting your preferred pet alternative conspiracy/pseudoscience. Good for you.
@@dionysianapollomarx you don't know anything, yet you speak on it
If psychology is a science, so is palm reading.
I always go back to cosmology and areas like quantum mechanics and more generally theoretical physics.
Area's where there is a lot of room for interpretation and 'lazy' science, In cosmology how much CMBR is from the big bang? All? None? We'll that would depend on how you 'feel'.
BICEP 2 is a good example looking for a particular pattern in the CMB that would result from the light going through space for a very long time giving a polarization pattern due to faraday rotation.
They did the research, and they FOUND that signature, got published in scientific American, and were waiting for their Nobel prize for finally 'proving' the big bang.
Except that was not the case, and they used graphs from other research, I think the publish or perish ethos is also a problem, I would rather better science than more science. But if you have to publish X amount of papers quantity overtakes quality.
Sir: To answer your question, likely rhetorical, about scandals in movies and music; speaking as a professional musician, I would, have, and continue to seriously question the "system" of music and movies, due in no small part to those various scandals to which you so darkly alluded.
And thus it is with "science". All institutions are inadequate, flawed, imperfect and incoherent. "Merit", if it even exists, and isn't some kind of chimera, is a very, very obscure and difficult thing to discern. Because of all that, and because of those frauds and various scandals, the ultimate efficacy of the "system" of science is unknowable, and therefore it's likely that many of the conclusions made by the institution of science are only as "true" as the system itself is effective.
This aged like milk haha
TH-cam playing games and this vid no other content creators keeps going the spinning wheel.