Judge - Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God? Me - No. Judge - (covers microphone and whispers) What do I do now?
@@flyingrc2041 LAWYER: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people? WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
Ironically about half way through this talk I realized the all-to-familiar dissonance of chasing a subject out of confirmation bias. I skip a LOT of TED talks, but this one hooked me right in; me being a truth-seeker, knowing I wouldn't be disappointed before I even clicked.
A scary talk for those make it a life goal to always be correct and smug about it. Our aim should always be to get closer to the best understanding. Great talk :)
its scary because its DAMN hardwork. im a marketer and i know not everyone has all the time in the world to fact-check everything that come up. we need shortcut, but realiable ones. this talk is awesome, but will only impact so many people. anyway, i guess its still worth finding the truth ourself
@@oomraden There are still things worthwhile in this talk, easy and quick things we can do. For starters, not being able to claim certainty for anything is a good thing; it lets us more open to other ideas.
I have been making a video over many of these same points for over a year now. This has to be one of my favorite TED talks I have found in a while. I am only just finding him, but it's really nice to see someone else having many of the same points. His chart around 6 mins in the video I have made something with almost the same wording, so that is very strange yet cool for me. It makes me feel less like I am all alone when thinking about this stuff. At any rate, it's really nice to find someone who has put so much work and thought into this same matter too.
"In a meeting, appoint someone to play devil's advocate to your viewpoint"' holy heck, imma use this when I go to the school pub for debate, this is awesome
11:18 That chart is right in one sense, NEVER trust business leaders. Regarding what you said about experts, a lot of them have vested interests. I don't think anyone trusts bankers and politicians these days, because we've been bitten too many times. We have a trust problem, but that isn't our fault. We've just been betrayed too many times.
Alex summed up in 17 minutes what the world needs to hear. Correlation is NOT Causation and representative, through, high-quality data is what should be trusted.
We don't live in a post-truth world. We live in a power=truth world. It doesn't matter what's true or isn't, if you have enough power, your word will be truth regardless of the facts.
Critical thinking should be a parents job, schools do still teach it, but the teachers of life skills (aka parents) told their kids not to listen because they didn't like being challenged. schools can teach whatever they want if the parents don't cultivate it. Source: not a reliable one, i've talked to parents and teachers. teachers often complain that they can't talk about everything because parents will get mad. The same way that parents get mad at the teacher and not the children when they have to see bad grades. and parents often complaining that their children ask too many questions. what's funny is that this was already complained about 20 years ago, so it's something the boomer parents taught the millenial parents
@@thenight1732 Near as I can tell: money. No matter how much outcry, outrage and handwringing happens, money still wins the day. Granted, there are efforts to change that and some movement in that direction; but still, as of now, money makes the mare go. (Of course, my objection assumes that the majority would make the effort and try to read and understand the papers, even if they all were openly accessible.)
@@thenight1732 One thing that I've seen other people mention is that quantity rather than quality is a focus of some of the more misleading sources, it is the best way to get the ad revenue. Quality papers and research usually take a lot more time and resources and that money needs to come from somewhere.
@@JayTheYggdrasil professors, on the payroll of public institutions, performing "research" - then published in fee journals is just wrong. Public dollars created that research. It should be available to the public, that has already paid for it. Private institutions, professors at those institutions have an argument. Nationally funded research, public funds... the outcomes should be required to be free.
Fun fact - in 2001, Konami released the video game "Metal Gear Solid 2" that predicted it was only a matter of time before the average person having completely unrestricted access to the internet would lead to the problem of post-truth politics, and a world of the average person no longer knowing who to trust about basic facts. It took about 15 years before people realized just how eerily prescient a video game could be.
he talks about been careful when you read some results as the truth, but arguably, there's no doubt that this is the true-honest approximation to someone's point of view i'm glad i view this
Thank You @excelsioruniversity that led me to this video , Education and Knowledge are important . I had to go back and googled who is Belle Gibson . what ? i always saw short videos of her without knowing who she was .
Research data only gets published when it produces positive outcomes, they don't publish the negative studies (i.e. drugs that don't work for the conditions they'd hoped they would), but they 100% should, so failures can be learned from and possibly built upon to make something that does works.
I think perhaps part of the reason people no longer trust those who claim to be experts is precisely because the experts are often bias to a specific outcome, more than honest about the complexity of the data. Just the same as is claimed of the common person here. Discerning between a true expert who seeks truth and is willing to listen deeply to an opposing viewpoint, and an expert who is working to fuel their job, reputation, pet theory, or chosen social advocates can be difficult. It is impossible to discern in a 5 minute clip. To discern an expert as a truth seeker, as opposed to 'pet theorist' is more a discernment of character, than of expertise.
@Super SaberIf you take Facebook, twitter and blogs into consideration? Definitely. Blog sites and sites with "patriot", "freedom", "liberty" or "alternative" in the web address _LOVE_ to post and spread fake news. Most main news sites are fine (with exceptions like Occupy Democrats, FOX, Breitbart, etc) and have a good track record for keeping things truthful.
@Avenger Actually the same goes for virtually any news outlet there is. It is that the news outlets have started to tell only the news their audience want's to hear - this was one point in the video - even if you tell only one side of the story, and not the other, even if the part you told would be true by itself, it is still fake news.
@@Avenger222 i saw whole channels filled with almost pure propaganda and fakes. You could see films and news about astrology, religion, aliens, homeopathy and so on.
I agree with all of this . Brilliant talk but with one tiny and interesting blind spot. My guess is that when he was talking about “ listening to an actress about vaccination” he was talking about Jenny McCarthy? However , the Tolstoy quote applies here to experts whose minds are too full of knowledge to be able to see what’s right in front of them. The problem with truth is occasionally the hairdresser ( or actress in this case) is open to things that the expert is not , simply because “expertise” can sometimes blind experts to a threatening radical paradigm. The medical and scientific community (supported by government and pharmaceuticals) is so emotionally wedded to the “ vaccines are safe” paradigm that it prevents them from acknowledging or rigorously exploring vaccine injury. One of the reasons is that vaccination has always been lauded as one of the jewels in the crown of scientific breakthroughs , so much so that everyone one of us has been brought up into the “ vaccine faith” without ever thinking it could be questioned. With vaccines Bayesian inference rules the day. Whenever the idea of vaccines being related to autism or such like is raised , then we see this unexamined cognitive bias kick in ( with a little help from Pharma funded biased research) . But it is my belief that in the case of vaccine injury and death , it’s the self educated hairdressers and actresses ( not to mention some enlightened scientists) that have their eyes open and fulfil Tolstoys concept of a “ difficult subject being taught to the low witted “ ( which is not to say that hairdressers cannot be very intelligent) th-cam.com/video/6jKrbcoOcEg/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/JKfbkeQyw84/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/play/PLJpPObXpZncOfT0bG2ghgkVb2Nxjd_bNe.html th-cam.com/video/Pi9PNKW7w3Q/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/6y09WNx4njY/w-d-xo.html
This has always been a truth world. It's just a matter of whether people are willing to search for the truth and then whether they chose to accept and live by the truth
basic epistemically to find the Truth (capital T) : 1. intuitive (cant be proven by empirical science) 2. Deductive Logic (Nobodys perfect in logic, event aristotle have different view with plato) 3. Empirical Science (have problem of induction) this is i had learned from Firas Zahabi
As an indication of how spot on this talk is, try to politicize it. It's impossible to put a left or right spin on it. This should be telling us something very important...
@introXversion To tag onto this, evidence + critical thinking skills. If someone provides "evidence" but they've lied before (e.g. Project Veritas and the heavily doctored ACORN video) then you really shouldn't give weight to their "evidence".
Last couple of years, this is big issue. Social media become free and very powerful propaganda tool. So many friends of mine take social media as main source of informations.
I think that the reason people don't trust experts is because they believe that the experts themselves are influenced by confirmation bias. I'm not saying that people are correct to disbelieve experts, but I don't blame them for being skeptical. The peer review process should eliminate the chances of misinformation reaching publication, not just decrease it, else the process itself is utterly pointless.
Same methodology can be implicated throughout our history... Humanity has always lived in truth... A fact is just a fact whether you believe or not.. trust is what we believe in.. like god
I don't think it is merely a matter of truth but a matter of trust. You need to be able to trust that the evidence shown in any given piece of research is accurate, and there are two ways I can think of to go about doing that, 1) Gathering the evidence yourself which can be time consuming and expensive or 2) by doing research on the source of the information. The second option usually takes far less resources. Credentials are merely a way of verifying that someone is who they say they are. I could claim that I'm an expert on nutrition and put out a study that claims that donuts are good for you (if only) and even provide some supposed evidence that may or may not be true. But my credentials would clearly show that I am not in fact who I say I am, and thus I am probably not very trustworthy. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe your point to be, well what if I did gather accurate data and I did come to an accurate conclusion even though I don't have a piece of paper telling you I know what I'm doing. Well I very well could be, but I just as easily not be, there is simply no evidence showing my trustworthiness. Take this as you will, I am no expert.
First, a phrase I am rather fond of: _Nullius in verba._ On no one's word. (It also happens to be the motto of the Royal Society.) Obviously some data are hard to gather; that's precisely the point: the person making the claim knows this, and knows that you have to take his word for it. Falsified data is hard to guard against, and honestly, being well-credentialed makes one _more_ likely to do this than less, if for no other reason than that he is more likely (and known to be so) to have the resources to gather the relevant data in the first place, but more likely because he has a vested interest in getting results (confirming the null hypothesis doesn't advance one's career) or because one doesn't want to get ostracized for contradicted the orthodoxy. The latter is currently a major problem in fields infested by activists, like climate science and evolutionary psychology, and is rapidly spreading. That's not really the point I was making though. Simply put, being an "expert" (i.e., well-credentialed) doesn't make you trustworthy. I have a strong aversion to "trust the experts;" it's awfully reminiscent of a priesthood, and I expect you know how well that turns out if you care about truth. I _am_ however, open to listening to what they have to say, but that is really because I'm happy to listen to anyone on any topic that I'm interested in.
@@ShankarSivarajan I like that phrase :D , I also want to point out that a priest would probably consider what they teach as truth, I feel like facts may be a better term to use there as it isn't as subjective. While I agree with your points. I do want to add however that publishing negative results can be very useful and I think is something that is underappreciated. I have mostly a background in Machine Learning specifically Reinforcement Learning as a hobbyist and in that field it can be very useful to have a record of what doesn't work and more importantly why.
@JayTheYggdrasil I wholeheartedly agree that negative results need to be more valued. The fact remains that they're not, and that incentivizes… well, if not outright fudging of data, at least misrepresentation of what they mean. Many things presented as fact by "experts" are actually subjective. That's the crux of the problem. Also, they're not upfront about how little they know: in some fields, nobody knows anything (they're just too hard), and "experts" are the ones unwilling to admit that.
You need to be pretty educated to know what journals are reputable sources and be able to understand the jargon . Not many people have the time or patience to do that . Some so called experts act more on studies that support funding and self interest than strong evidence . It's really hard to know what to believe .
That's a lot to ask for, I'm concerned that it might not be possible to have most people think that way. Even the greatest and most critical minds are prone to such basic mistakes, how much more are the majority of uneducated and unprofessional people who are the largest driver of the problem? I assume that the best way forward is to focus more of our efforts on improving our education systems, whether or not we can really make it or not, we might as well try.
When my bank refuses to cash a check I wrote immediately? I will fire them. They are not worthy of holding my money for me. I pay the bank fees. Not my employee. My check wrote dollar for dollar and drawn on that same bank should not be subjected to feed for cashing an employee's check at my own bank right?
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 91 | คู่เอก "คมอาวุธ vs อเล็กเซย์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/V0RkEfYFsgM/mqdefault.jpg)
One of the most rational, coherent and important TED talks I have seen..
Best Tedx talk I've seen yet. No matter what side or issue, this will help you get closer to the truth.
Hey TED! Stop incorporating pop-up boxes before the talk is finished. It's annoying, and in this case, blocks important information. Thank you.
Actually the boxes disturbs the quick sum up of the whole session most of the time
I hate those things!
Just pushing an important comment. Yeah, I mean you TED, it's mainly important for you!
Far and away one of the most important TED talks.
Judge - Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?
Me - No.
Judge - (covers microphone and whispers) What do I do now?
contempt of court
@@flyingrc2041 LAWYER: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
Graham Jonathan God can't help me, because he dosen't exist. So I am not bound by this crap outpour of stupid words.
@@pcuimac Me neither
@@pcuimac nobody knows stop pretending to be smarter than than the rest of us
THIS GUY IS A FREAKING LEGEND
Ironically about half way through this talk I realized the all-to-familiar dissonance of chasing a subject out of confirmation bias. I skip a LOT of TED talks, but this one hooked me right in; me being a truth-seeker, knowing I wouldn't be disappointed before I even clicked.
Fantastic presentation; very, very, thought provoking.
A scary talk for those make it a life goal to always be correct and smug about it.
Our aim should always be to get closer to the best understanding. Great talk :)
its scary because its DAMN hardwork. im a marketer and i know not everyone has all the time in the world to fact-check everything that come up. we need shortcut, but realiable ones. this talk is awesome, but will only impact so many people. anyway, i guess its still worth finding the truth ourself
@@oomraden There are still things worthwhile in this talk, easy and quick things we can do. For starters, not being able to claim certainty for anything is a good thing; it lets us more open to other ideas.
@@Mercure250 the problem is, you have to claim certainty for people to listen.
@@eadbert1935 Not always, but yeah, it is pretty ingrained into our culture, and I would say that's not always a good thing.
I have been making a video over many of these same points for over a year now. This has to be one of my favorite TED talks I have found in a while. I am only just finding him, but it's really nice to see someone else having many of the same points. His chart around 6 mins in the video I have made something with almost the same wording, so that is very strange yet cool for me. It makes me feel less like I am all alone when thinking about this stuff. At any rate, it's really nice to find someone who has put so much work and thought into this same matter too.
Alex Edmans. Technical expertise at its best. Teaching & authentically selling.
"In a meeting, appoint someone to play devil's advocate to your viewpoint"' holy heck, imma use this when I go to the school pub for debate, this is awesome
I feel like he’s opened my eyes, but I’m not sure if I’ll actually change my behavior, or if I’ll just forget about this in a week.
I am. If you are uncertain enough to write your uncertainty down instead of acting it out, nothing will change.
11:18 That chart is right in one sense, NEVER trust business leaders.
Regarding what you said about experts, a lot of them have vested interests. I don't think anyone trusts bankers and politicians these days, because we've been bitten too many times. We have a trust problem, but that isn't our fault. We've just been betrayed too many times.
Well, that would depend on what they're asked about. Ask yourself on case by case basis. What would this expert get out of lying?
@@DirtyPoul Money or power. It's usually money or power.
Alex summed up in 17 minutes what the world needs to hear. Correlation is NOT Causation and representative, through, high-quality data is what should be trusted.
We don't live in a post-truth world. We live in a power=truth world. It doesn't matter what's true or isn't, if you have enough power, your word will be truth regardless of the facts.
So tru
thenonexistinghero - Sad to hear you feel that way, yes it has some validity, also truth has a way of getting out.
Do you have any evidence for that claim?
That was fast, already got someone disagreeing with an expert...
We always lived in this world - "the victors tells the history" :)
it's saddening that this must be said to begin with, but I wholeheartedly enjoy that it has happened now that is needed
Lovely talk and much needed. Schools used to cover critical thinking, but I think that got cut for budgetary reasons long ago.
Critical thinking should be a parents job, schools do still teach it, but the teachers of life skills (aka parents) told their kids not to listen because they didn't like being challenged. schools can teach whatever they want if the parents don't cultivate it.
Source: not a reliable one, i've talked to parents and teachers. teachers often complain that they can't talk about everything because parents will get mad. The same way that parents get mad at the teacher and not the children when they have to see bad grades. and parents often complaining that their children ask too many questions. what's funny is that this was already complained about 20 years ago, so it's something the boomer parents taught the millenial parents
Truth sounds like an awful amount of work. ;)
I certainly wish I had access to the data in reputable sources without expensive subscriptions.
It should be public information. Makes me wonder what the motive is behind keeping anyone who can't afford the subscription out.
@@thenight1732 Near as I can tell: money. No matter how much outcry, outrage and handwringing happens, money still wins the day. Granted, there are efforts to change that and some movement in that direction; but still, as of now, money makes the mare go.
(Of course, my objection assumes that the majority would make the effort and try to read and understand the papers, even if they all were openly accessible.)
@@thenight1732 One thing that I've seen other people mention is that quantity rather than quality is a focus of some of the more misleading sources, it is the best way to get the ad revenue. Quality papers and research usually take a lot more time and resources and that money needs to come from somewhere.
@@JayTheYggdrasil In an ideal world money should come from public investment.
@@JayTheYggdrasil professors, on the payroll of public institutions, performing "research" - then published in fee journals is just wrong. Public dollars created that research. It should be available to the public, that has already paid for it. Private institutions, professors at those institutions have an argument. Nationally funded research, public funds... the outcomes should be required to be free.
This video definitely needs more views
"Counting the hits, ignoring the misses"
The root of every argument for God as well...
He actually has a great voice
In this world, truth is entertainment. If it isn't entertaining, few are going to watch or listen.
Fun fact - in 2001, Konami released the video game "Metal Gear Solid 2" that predicted it was only a matter of time before the average person having completely unrestricted access to the internet would lead to the problem of post-truth politics, and a world of the average person no longer knowing who to trust about basic facts. It took about 15 years before people realized just how eerily prescient a video game could be.
he talks about been careful when you read some results as the truth, but arguably, there's no doubt that this is the true-honest approximation to someone's point of view
i'm glad i view this
Thank You @excelsioruniversity that led me to this video , Education and Knowledge are important . I had to go back and googled who is Belle Gibson . what ? i always saw short videos of her without knowing who she was .
Easily one of the best talks on this channel!
This, this is one of most important lesson you can learn as academic, especially if you are a researcher or in medical field.
Research data only gets published when it produces positive outcomes, they don't publish the negative studies (i.e. drugs that don't work for the conditions they'd hoped they would), but they 100% should, so failures can be learned from and possibly built upon to make something that does works.
Or all the drugs that never make it to shelves because a placebo works just as well.
@@SoloAdvocate I mean in the case of placebos that actually work would that not have a potentially negative effect on how well it works?
I LOVE THIS GUY, HE IS BRILLIANT
Absolutely beautiful!
trust no one but yourself, you won't be betrayed, haven't watched ted talks videos for a while, this was a nice one though.
Excellent talk!!! Thank you Alex for this contribution.
Who the he'll put a thumbs down on that!? Excellent. About time someone said it.
Probably Belle Gibson's fans 🤣
Already like, saved, download, share and comment... your arguments is wonderful and its very logic !
BElieve in YOU, believe in what you feel... for that... you need to know yourself, know what you feel
Great thought provoking talk - the reason I watch Ted, thank you!
BEST TED I HAVE EVER SEEN
I think perhaps part of the reason people no longer trust those who claim to be experts is precisely because the experts are often bias to a specific outcome, more than honest about the complexity of the data. Just the same as is claimed of the common person here.
Discerning between a true expert who seeks truth and is willing to listen deeply to an opposing viewpoint, and an expert who is working to fuel their job, reputation, pet theory, or chosen social advocates can be difficult. It is impossible to discern in a 5 minute clip. To discern an expert as a truth seeker, as opposed to 'pet theorist' is more a discernment of character, than of expertise.
I agree with you.
Absolutely helped me
16:41 This is the essence
This is the focus of the Media, social media as well as news media, the outliers "prove"....
Thank you. Many need to hear this.
one of the best ted talks !
Interesting talk! And man. Very articulate.
Great talk
Fantastic job, Alex!
Outstanding ted talk. These methods should be much more widespread.
Of all videos I have surveyed, this title exemplifies confusion best.
This is really inspiring!
and when was it a "truth" world?
@Super Saber Do you believe TV news? I presume TV is same 90% fake.
@Super SaberIf you take Facebook, twitter and blogs into consideration? Definitely. Blog sites and sites with "patriot", "freedom", "liberty" or "alternative" in the web address _LOVE_ to post and spread fake news.
Most main news sites are fine (with exceptions like Occupy Democrats, FOX, Breitbart, etc) and have a good track record for keeping things truthful.
Your story has the ring of truth, yes it rings truth
@Avenger Actually the same goes for virtually any news outlet there is. It is that the news outlets have started to tell only the news their audience want's to hear - this was one point in the video - even if you tell only one side of the story, and not the other, even if the part you told would be true by itself, it is still fake news.
@@Avenger222 i saw whole channels filled with almost pure propaganda and fakes. You could see films and news about astrology, religion, aliens, homeopathy and so on.
I agree with all of this . Brilliant talk but with one tiny and interesting blind spot. My guess is that when he was talking about “ listening to an actress about vaccination” he was talking about Jenny McCarthy? However , the Tolstoy quote applies here to experts whose minds are too full of knowledge to be able to see what’s right in front of them. The problem with truth is occasionally the hairdresser ( or actress in this case) is open to things that the expert is not , simply because “expertise” can sometimes blind experts to a threatening radical paradigm. The medical and scientific community (supported by government and pharmaceuticals) is so emotionally wedded to the “ vaccines are safe” paradigm that it prevents them from acknowledging or rigorously exploring vaccine injury. One of the reasons is that vaccination has always been lauded as one of the jewels in the crown of scientific breakthroughs , so much so that everyone one of us has been brought up into the “ vaccine faith” without ever thinking it could be questioned. With vaccines Bayesian inference rules the day.
Whenever the idea of vaccines being related to autism or such like is raised , then we see this unexamined cognitive bias kick in ( with a little help from Pharma funded biased research) . But it is my belief that in the case of vaccine injury and death , it’s the self educated hairdressers and actresses ( not to mention some enlightened scientists) that have their eyes open and fulfil Tolstoys concept of a “ difficult subject being taught to the low witted “ ( which is not to say that hairdressers cannot be very intelligent)
th-cam.com/video/6jKrbcoOcEg/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/JKfbkeQyw84/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/play/PLJpPObXpZncOfT0bG2ghgkVb2Nxjd_bNe.html
th-cam.com/video/Pi9PNKW7w3Q/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/6y09WNx4njY/w-d-xo.html
Absolutely spectacular!
superb talk!!!
Post-truth in ways we may not even understand...
60 people disliked this? I hope never to be in a conversation with those 60...
What do you know, maybe they had good reasons.
Best talk ever!
"What to trust in a post-truth world?"
Science, I would bet on science.
This has always been a truth world. It's just a matter of whether people are willing to search for the truth and then whether they chose to accept and live by the truth
thank you
Remember what happened to Ted Hill's paper on the variability hypothesis? But sure, trust in journals.
basic epistemically to find the Truth (capital T) :
1. intuitive (cant be proven by empirical science)
2. Deductive Logic (Nobodys perfect in logic, event aristotle have different view with plato)
3. Empirical Science (have problem of induction)
this is i had learned from Firas Zahabi
As an indication of how spot on this talk is, try to politicize it. It's impossible to put a left or right spin on it. This should be telling us something very important...
Yes good comment
It's definitely possible. Idk what you are talking about.
The solutions (or embrace) to this problem are divergent between party lines.
Well said
Long story short: buy a piece of land in the middle of nowhere and go live there without contact to other human beings, believe nothing.
*TRUST NO ONE*
Me over here spending an hour vetting each thought that comes to mind 😂
6:24 data & evidence defined.
finally something worthwhile
fantastic !!!!
Evidence. You trust evidence.
@introXversion
To tag onto this, evidence + critical thinking skills. If someone provides "evidence" but they've lied before (e.g. Project Veritas and the heavily doctored ACORN video) then you really shouldn't give weight to their "evidence".
He needs to talk in TED, not just TEDx.
16:25 Exactly
This was awesome and well said. To a Pro-Truth World!
Brilliant
Be skeptic, but listen
Superb!!
Lot of people here commenting on the title before actually listening to the talk.
Last couple of years, this is big issue. Social media become free and very powerful propaganda tool. So many friends of mine take social media as main source of informations.
I think that the reason people don't trust experts is because they believe that the experts themselves are influenced by confirmation bias. I'm not saying that people are correct to disbelieve experts, but I don't blame them for being skeptical. The peer review process should eliminate the chances of misinformation reaching publication, not just decrease it, else the process itself is utterly pointless.
Same methodology can be implicated throughout our history... Humanity has always lived in truth... A fact is just a fact whether you believe or not.. trust is what we believe in.. like god
I recommend you to read Zygmunt Bauman- postmodernity and its dicontents.
It's hilarios seeing TED talking about post-truth
10:45
Considering the credentials of the person who makes a claim demonstrates a disregard for the truth.
I don't think it is merely a matter of truth but a matter of trust. You need to be able to trust that the evidence shown in any given piece of research is accurate, and there are two ways I can think of to go about doing that, 1) Gathering the evidence yourself which can be time consuming and expensive or 2) by doing research on the source of the information.
The second option usually takes far less resources.
Credentials are merely a way of verifying that someone is who they say they are. I could claim that I'm an expert on nutrition and put out a study that claims that donuts are good for you (if only) and even provide some supposed evidence that may or may not be true. But my credentials would clearly show that I am not in fact who I say I am, and thus I am probably not very trustworthy. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe your point to be, well what if I did gather accurate data and I did come to an accurate conclusion even though I don't have a piece of paper telling you I know what I'm doing. Well I very well could be, but I just as easily not be, there is simply no evidence showing my trustworthiness.
Take this as you will, I am no expert.
First, a phrase I am rather fond of: _Nullius in verba._ On no one's word. (It also happens to be the motto of the Royal Society.)
Obviously some data are hard to gather; that's precisely the point: the person making the claim knows this, and knows that you have to take his word for it. Falsified data is hard to guard against, and honestly, being well-credentialed makes one _more_ likely to do this than less, if for no other reason than that he is more likely (and known to be so) to have the resources to gather the relevant data in the first place, but more likely because he has a vested interest in getting results (confirming the null hypothesis doesn't advance one's career) or because one doesn't want to get ostracized for contradicted the orthodoxy. The latter is currently a major problem in fields infested by activists, like climate science and evolutionary psychology, and is rapidly spreading.
That's not really the point I was making though. Simply put, being an "expert" (i.e., well-credentialed) doesn't make you trustworthy.
I have a strong aversion to "trust the experts;" it's awfully reminiscent of a priesthood, and I expect you know how well that turns out if you care about truth. I _am_ however, open to listening to what they have to say, but that is really because I'm happy to listen to anyone on any topic that I'm interested in.
@@ShankarSivarajan I like that phrase :D , I also want to point out that a priest would probably consider what they teach as truth, I feel like facts may be a better term to use there as it isn't as subjective. While I agree with your points. I do want to add however that publishing negative results can be very useful and I think is something that is underappreciated. I have mostly a background in Machine Learning specifically Reinforcement Learning as a hobbyist and in that field it can be very useful to have a record of what doesn't work and more importantly why.
@JayTheYggdrasil I wholeheartedly agree that negative results need to be more valued. The fact remains that they're not, and that incentivizes… well, if not outright fudging of data, at least misrepresentation of what they mean.
Many things presented as fact by "experts" are actually subjective. That's the crux of the problem. Also, they're not upfront about how little they know: in some fields, nobody knows anything (they're just too hard), and "experts" are the ones unwilling to admit that.
We can only Trust NICER Administration Lawyers for a Trust Validation and NICER Certification inheritance and legacy wealth transfer.
I would want to hear this guy talk on 2022 after COVID becomes ENDEMIC
2:51 ''We never consider the rival theories because we are so protective of our own pack theory.''
You need to be pretty educated to know what journals are reputable sources and be able to understand the jargon . Not many people have the time or patience to do that . Some so called experts act more on studies that support funding and self interest than strong evidence . It's really hard to know what to believe .
If i telling the truth in post-truth age, who i am?
Very balanced
That's a lot to ask for, I'm concerned that it might not be possible to have most people think that way. Even the greatest and most critical minds are prone to such basic mistakes, how much more are the majority of uneducated and unprofessional people who are the largest driver of the problem? I assume that the best way forward is to focus more of our efforts on improving our education systems, whether or not we can really make it or not, we might as well try.
I thought about sharing this but couldn't find his credentials.
I like Yuval Noah Harari's question: when was the age of truth? The 1980's? The first century? The world's always been full of BS and always will be.
Not my type of warm blooded sociopath. Too cold, and yet refreshingly imprecise. 🤷🏼♀️🤷🏿♂️
Jolly good exercise during insomnia
One think is sure in this world, you have to do something to become someone
When my bank refuses to cash a check I wrote immediately? I will fire them. They are not worthy of holding my money for me. I pay the bank fees. Not my employee. My check wrote dollar for dollar and drawn on that same bank should not be subjected to feed for cashing an employee's check at my own bank right?
My mom only has stories and no evidence...lol
Everyone is a liar. Or WOULD be for the 'right' motivation.
Debug 101: If your method has bug, comment out the entire method to test if is your method has bug or other things went wrong.