Stuart's insights are vividly accurate, but the problem with science studies isn't too many published, it is too many positive studies (11:50) and too few negative studies. In other words, too many happy stories and not enough sad stories. It is equally, perhaps more, important to publish the failures. Because in genuine science the failures provide as much data and direction as the successes. Just like in life.
The real problem is that there is not enough opportunity to publish negative results. This combined with 'Publish or perish' pushes scientists to fish for publishable positive outcomes in a sea of BS data.
@@vecernicek2 That's certainly true. How strange that an anti-science bias (i.e. cherry-picking studies) is an explicit filter for leading science journals to choose significant studies.
@@jackintheworld6639 Strange indeed, but after all, scientific journals are in the business of publishing science. Not in the science of publishing science.
@@vecernicek2 have you any publications? I’d love to view your work, You should consider implementing it into some content on this platform via interview, debate, lecture etc. i’m curious of your insights, I feel like your mind would be a fun one to pick at.
These retards have obviously never heard of Ingo Swann, or the last half century of US and Russian military research into Psy phenomena, or indeed ongoing Remote Viewing with the Farsight Institute, or the Crypto Viewing TH-cam channel, or the entire complete works of Carl Jung, Dr Stanislav Grof, or Terence and Dennis McKenna. You wonder why science is losing credibility? This video is exactly why, you dumb faux-boffin morons. Take some magic mushrooms and wake the fuck up. I turned off after minute three.
@@rhyon8530 Not the best approach if you’re trying to get people to ACTUALLY pay attention to what you’re saying, but I understand where you’re coming from. It can be frustrating translating your newfound cognizance to others, I suspect you have much work to do in the field of directly translating perception. Anyhow, You don’t need psilocybin, you don’t need lysergic acid diethylamide, dimethyl tryptamine none of these are needed if you were unwilling to do and continue doing the deep &meta work involved afterwards.
@@lilfr4nkie I got YOUR attention. And my spiritual defrag practice is my business, I didn't mention it once. Psychedelics are catalysts, for Muppets like these two to get with the program. Pardon my French, precious Millennial.
It's incredible that scientific journals care more about exciting research than about whether it is rigorously accurate, valid and true. It seems to me the journals should have a standard which says positive-finding papers initially are published as "calls for reproduction" and understood as "tentative findings", and then only after they are credibly reproduced several times by others, the research is considered bona fide.
Scientists would LOVE to publish negative data! Of course I want my work published, especially in the current academic environment where publications are paramount. The journals are the gatekeepers, though.
When should you not trust science? When you hear the words behaviour and economics. When should you not trust people talking about psychology or medicine? When you hear the words quantum or entropy.
I had no idea that peer review was so ripe with editorializing. I presumed it would be strictly a technical analysis of the findings. No wonder there's so much anti-science sentiment in society now. Seems to show a lack of maturity, no?
If you want to get this message about "Scientism" out into the masses, you need short (not the Shorts), snappy, videos that have some color and pop and fizz. Know what I mean? You can make small clips from the long videos that are 3 to 4 min. long -- as many different people as possible (if possible), some rock or pop (sometimes country) music would be good - just a snippet at the beginning and end. Quick Short Jazzed Up Videos Sell like Hot Cakes to the Masses. And you need snazzy titles But your channel name Intelligence Squared is good. Good luck and thank you for truth seeking.
Stuart's insights are vividly accurate, but the problem with science studies isn't too many published, it is too many positive studies (11:50) and too few negative studies. In other words, too many happy stories and not enough sad stories. It is equally, perhaps more, important to publish the failures. Because in genuine science the failures provide as much data and direction as the successes. Just like in life.
The real problem is that there is not enough opportunity to publish negative results. This combined with 'Publish or perish' pushes scientists to fish for publishable positive outcomes in a sea of BS data.
@@vecernicek2 That's certainly true. How strange that an anti-science bias (i.e. cherry-picking studies) is an explicit filter for leading science journals to choose significant studies.
@@jackintheworld6639 Strange indeed, but after all, scientific journals are in the business of publishing science. Not in the science of publishing science.
@@vecernicek2 have you any publications? I’d love to view your work, You should consider implementing it into some content on this platform via interview, debate, lecture etc. i’m curious of your insights, I feel like your mind would be a fun one to pick at.
Do you agree with Stuart that the current system of scientific research churns out too many studies that are unreliable and exaggerated?
I think there needs to be more scientific studies. That's what needs to be done.
Everybody should be a scientist.
People should all be scientists.
These retards have obviously never heard of Ingo Swann, or the last half century of US and Russian military research into Psy phenomena, or indeed ongoing Remote Viewing with the Farsight Institute, or the Crypto Viewing TH-cam channel, or the entire complete works of Carl Jung, Dr Stanislav Grof, or Terence and Dennis McKenna. You wonder why science is losing credibility? This video is exactly why, you dumb faux-boffin morons. Take some magic mushrooms and wake the fuck up. I turned off after minute three.
@@rhyon8530 Not the best approach if you’re trying to get people to ACTUALLY pay attention to what you’re saying, but I understand where you’re coming from. It can be frustrating translating your newfound cognizance to others, I suspect you have much work to do in the field of directly translating perception. Anyhow, You don’t need psilocybin, you don’t need lysergic acid diethylamide, dimethyl tryptamine none of these are needed if you were unwilling to do and continue doing the deep &meta work involved afterwards.
@@lilfr4nkie I got YOUR attention. And my spiritual defrag practice is my business, I didn't mention it once. Psychedelics are catalysts, for Muppets like these two to get with the program. Pardon my French, precious Millennial.
It's incredible that scientific journals care more about exciting research than about whether it is rigorously accurate, valid and true. It seems to me the journals should have a standard which says positive-finding papers initially are published as "calls for reproduction" and understood as "tentative findings", and then only after they are credibly reproduced several times by others, the research is considered bona fide.
There is inherently a conflict of interest between science and profitability.
Scientists would LOVE to publish negative data! Of course I want my work published, especially in the current academic environment where publications are paramount. The journals are the gatekeepers, though.
Kind of like the S&P/Moodys
When should you not trust science? When you hear the words behaviour and economics. When should you not trust people talking about psychology or medicine? When you hear the words quantum or entropy.
I had no idea that peer review was so ripe with editorializing. I presumed it would be strictly a technical analysis of the findings.
No wonder there's so much anti-science sentiment in society now.
Seems to show a lack of maturity, no?
An actual peer review comment that one of my professors got: "I don't understand it, but I disagree."
Depends are they just pushing a political agenda because of their funding? or telling the truth
If you want to get this message about "Scientism" out into the masses, you need short (not the Shorts), snappy, videos that have some color and pop and fizz. Know what I mean?
You can make small clips from the long videos that are 3 to 4 min. long -- as many different people as possible (if possible), some rock or pop (sometimes country) music would be good - just a snippet at the beginning and end.
Quick
Short
Jazzed Up
Videos
Sell like Hot Cakes to the Masses.
And you need snazzy titles
But your channel name Intelligence Squared is good.
Good luck and thank you for truth seeking.
When Science is Politicized it can't be trusted? So how do you determine what science is real?
Book advertising?
no single word about the Global Warming (tm)
that's all you need to know about this "honesty defender".
Yeah... I think enough, unsubscribe, bye!
why?