Podcasts about Replication crisis

In this episode of the Crazy Wisdom Podcast, host Stewart Alsop interviews Joshua Pearce, the John Thompson Chair in Innovation at the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Ivey Business School at Western University, about the revolution in open source hardware for scientific research. They discuss how three-dimensional printing, Arduino controllers, and open source designs are dramatically reducing research costs—often by 85-95%—while democratizing access to lab equipment worldwide. Pearce shares stories from his 2013 book "Open Source Lab" and explains how the movement has exploded since then, covering everything from filter wheel changers and ball mills to metal three-dimensional printers and battery research equipment. The conversation explores recycle bots that turn plastic waste into filament, the role of AI in accelerating hardware development, and how open source licensing creates a global knowledge management system where improvements are shared across the scientific community. For those interested in learning more, Pearce recommends checking out the journal HardwareX, repositories like Thingiverse and My Mini Factory, and appropedia.org for open source scientific tools and appropriate technology designs.Timestamps00:00 Welcome and introduction to Joshua Pearce, discussing his work on open source lab equipment and the evolution since publishing his book in 201305:00 Early development of open source hardware including the breakthrough filter wheel changer project built by a high school student that saved thousands of dollars10:00 Discussion of how Arduino and RepRap three-d printers enabled the democratization of scientific tools, making complex equipment accessible to anyone15:00 Economic impact showing average tool savings of 85 percent, with Arduino and three-d printing combinations reaching mid-90s percent cost reduction20:00 Case study of PhD student Mariam building complete battery research tool chain from scratch using open source designs and three-d printed components25:00 Recycle bots enabling transformation of waste plastic into three-d printer filament for pennies, revolutionizing material costs and sustainability30:00 Collaboration between universities and open source companies creating fluid handlers and acquisition systems, accelerating research capabilities globally35:00 Large language models assisting code translation and research planning, though hallucinations require careful verification and domain expertise40:00 Importance of fundamental knowledge when using AI tools, comparing vibe coding acceleration with necessity for understanding underlying principles45:00 Testing standards and calibration methods for open source equipment, balancing precision requirements against cost-effectiveness for specific applications50:00 Metal and ceramic three-d printing developments including MIG welding techniques and sintering processes for creating functional parts55:00 Knowledge management through open source licenses, repositories like Thingiverse and Apropedia enabling global collaboration and continuous improvementKey Insights1. Open source hardware has evolved dramatically since Joshua Pearce wrote his book in 2012-2013, to the point where he can no longer keep up with all the developments in the field. What started as a collection where every single example could fit in one book has exploded into an entire ecosystem with dedicated journals and thousands of researchers contributing. The vision was that scientific papers would eventually include hyperlinks to equipment designs that anyone could download and replicate, and that future is largely here today. There are now so many open source hardware articles being published that no single person can read them all, which represents a massive success for the movement.2. The fundamental breakthrough enabling open source scientific hardware came from combining several key technologies, particularly the RepRap three-d printer project and Arduino microcontrollers. Pearce's introduction to the field came when he needed a sixty-five dollar plastic part for a solar laptop project and discovered Adrian's open-sourced rapid prototyper that could make its own parts. This led to building equipment like a filter wheel changer for testing solar panels with a high school student in about a week, replacing a device that would have cost two thousand five hundred dollars with five months lead time. The democratization of tools like three-d printing and Arduino, combined with extensive code libraries and shared designs, means that even high school students can now create sophisticated scientific equipment.3. Open source scientific hardware delivers massive economic benefits, with the average tool saving scientists around eighty-five percent compared to commercial equipment, and savings reaching the mid-nineties when using Arduino and three-d printing. The economics are so compelling that the tax paid on a normal scientific tool can cover the cost of an open source alternative. A thousand dollar three-d printer can manufacture scientific tools worth more than a thousand dollars in a single Saturday. This dramatic cost reduction makes sophisticated research accessible to laboratories around the world regardless of their funding levels, fundamentally democratizing scientific capability.4. The knowledge management approach enabled by open source licenses creates a powerful collaborative improvement cycle where thousands of people worldwide contribute to evolving designs. When researchers publish equipment designs with strong reciprocal licenses, anyone can use, modify, or even sell the designs, but improvements must be shared back with the community. This creates a dispersed international engineering effort where equipment continuously improves through contributions from researchers across different institutions and countries. The RepRap three-d printer exemplifies this process, starting as barely functional prototypes but evolving through community contributions to surpass commercial alternatives in speed, resolution, and material capabilities.5. The integration of large language models and AI tools has significantly accelerated open source hardware development, though with important caveats about their limitations. LLMs excel at translating code between languages, suggesting experimental approaches, and helping researchers navigate unfamiliar fields by quickly synthesizing information from scientific literature. However, they suffer from hallucination problems and cannot be trusted for writing scientific articles or conducting complete literature reviews without verification. The key to effective use is having enough foundational knowledge to ask the right questions and verify outputs, using AI as a powerful acceleration tool rather than a replacement for expertise.6. Material science capabilities in open source hardware have expanded far beyond plastic three-d printing to include metals, ceramics, semiconductors, and composites through innovative adaptations of basic equipment. Pearce's lab has developed methods for metal three-d printing using modified MIG welding for as little as twelve hundred dollars, created slot-die coating systems for seventeen nanometer semiconductor layers using converted three-d printers, and developed techniques for ceramic printing through various material mixing approaches. The recycle bot technology enables converting waste plastic into high-quality filament for twenty-five cents instead of twenty-five dollars per roll, dramatically reducing material costs while enabling circular manufacturing practices.7. The infrastructure for sharing and discovering open source hardware designs has matured into a robust ecosystem spanning academic journals, commercial repositories, and specialized communities. Hardware X and the Journal of Open Hardware publish peer-reviewed designs alongside traditional scientific journals increasingly incorporating open hardware sections. Repositories like Thingiverse recently returned to hardcore open source principles after ownership changes and contains millions of designs, while Appropedia serves as a wiki for appropriate technology with thousands of open source designs. The GOSH community hosts annual conferences bringing together university researchers, companies, and independent hardware hackers, while field-specific communities have formed around technologies like the OpenFlexure microscope, creating networks where knowledge accumulates and never gets lost.

We delve into the recent large scale replication project in sport and exercise studies, their methods and findings. Then we try to understand why it found the results that it did in light of known statistical phenomena, similar findings from other research fields, and why an apparent replication crisis depends on how you already view and interpret published literature. Plus your listener questions.

If you have ever felt like a failure because the "evidence-based" protocol didn't fix you, or if you are a clinician feeling the crushing weight of a system that rewards compliance over competence—this episode is your validation. The wall is hollow. The science has become science-flavored capitalism. But the real work is still happening in the cracks of the system, in the rooms where two human beings are brave enough to put down the worksheets and simply look at each other. "The way a profession defends a failed paradigm against its own data is the same way a patient defends a failed self-image against their own felt experience." In the explosive penultimate episode of Psychotherapy on the Couch, Joel takes a magnifying glass to the single greatest crisis of modern American psychiatry: the moment the apparatus proved its own foundation was a lie, and then decided to just keep building on it anyway. This episode dives deep into the STAR*D study—a $35 million federal initiative designed to prove the medication-first paradigm worked. It didn't. But instead of changing course, the industry buried the data, ignored the severe suicidality rates, and proceeded to build decades of clinical guidelines on a fiction. This isn't just a story about bad science; it's a clinical case study in institutional dissociation. When the cold machine looks in the mirror and sees a monster, it doesn't change—it just shatters the glass.

What happens when you discover that a book that fundamentally changed how you think is built on a shaky foundation? In today's episode, I share my own struggle with the replication crisis surrounding Daniel Kahneman's *Thinking Fast and Slow*, and I use it as a springboard to talk about a much bigger skill: knowing how to update your beliefs when reality shifts underneath you. This isn't about throwing out science or losing trust in your heroes. It's about developing the muscle to replace old explanations with better ones — a skill that has never been more important for software engineers. The Replication Crisis, Briefly Explained: Understand the difference between reproducing a study (re-running the analysis on the original data) and replicating one (recreating the study from the ground up), and why a surprisingly large portion of well-respected psychology research, including studies cited in Thinking Fast and Slow, doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Base Rates Matter: Kahneman didn't pick uniquely bad studies. If you randomly sampled from the broader academic literature, you'd hit the same failure rate. The lesson isn't about one author — it's about how we evaluate any body of knowledge. The Beginning of Infinity Framework: Drawing from David Deutsch's book, explore the idea that all progress is rooted in the assumption that we are fundamentally incorrect, and that improvement comes from continually building better explanations on top of incomplete ones. Beliefs as Calibration, Not Truth: Your beliefs about what makes a good engineer, what makes good code, or what makes a good career move are not eternal truths. They are calibrations to your current reality, and that reality is changing fast. The Ego Trap of Old Beliefs: Notice the very human, very subtle pull to defend things you previously argued for — not because they're still right, but because admitting otherwise creates a discontinuity with your former self. This is one of the biggest blockers to learning. Two Competing Explanations of AI Adoption: Walk through a worked example of holding two predictions about AI in tension and asking honestly which one better explains the reality you're seeing — at both a macro industry level and the micro level of debugging a system. Moving Goalposts Aren't a Conspiracy: A lot of what feels like shifting goalposts in our industry is just goalposts moving on their own. A big part of our job as engineers is figuring out where they are now and predicting where they're heading next. Episode Homework: Pick one belief you hold strongly about your work — about what makes a good engineer, about a tool, about a process. Try to deconstruct it into its parts and ask whether a better explanation exists for what you're actually seeing.

How do we know what we know? That's where science comes in—it gives us a method for testing our ideas and getting trustworthy results. But some researchers have warned that many scientific studies can't be replicated. To find out how deep the problem goes, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency funded one of the largest analyses of social science, called the SCORE project. They checked the results of thousands of papers across economics, education, and psychology—and found that only half of them could be replicated. Joining Host Ira Flatow to discuss the findings are Tim Errington, one of the leads on this project, and economist Abel Brodeur, who recently released the results of a separate replication study that found more encouraging results than SCORE did. Guest: Dr. Tim Errington is senior director of research at the Center For Open Science in Washington, D.C. Dr. Abel Brodeur is a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa and founder of the Institute for Replication. Transcripts for each episode are available within 1-3 days at sciencefriday.com.     Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

Mickey is BACK with two new papers he has co-authored, a bunch of opinions, and a very unwelcome idea: maybe the problem with AI isn't that it doesn't work but that it works too well!The first paper, Against Frictionless AI, argues that AI assistance and its ability to take away the effort from thinking, writing, and smooth out social(like) interactions could be robbing those activities of the very thing that makes them worthwhile.The second paper is a more empirical investigation that presents a bunch of studies examining the topic of the (alleged) moralisation of AI. Some findings suggest that opposition to AI among some people isn't really about risks or trade-offs but rather about non-negotiable sacred moral values. Who knew?We also discuss effort justification, reproducible research, robosexual allyship, and just how much humanity remains within the cyborg Matthew Browne.And remember... It's just like our opinion, man!LinksDecoding Academia 34: Empathetic AIs? (Patreon Series)Ovsyannikova, D., Oldemburgo de Mello, V., & Inzlicht, M. (2025). Third-party evaluators perceive AI as more compassionate than expert humans. Communications Psychology, 3, Article 4.Zohar, E., Bloom, P., & Inzlicht, M. (2026). Against frictionless AI. Communications Psychology, 4, Article 39.Oldemburgo de Mello, V., Côté, É., Ayad, R., Inbar, Y., Plaks, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2026). The moralization of artificial intelligence (Manuscript under review).Paul Bloom's Small Potatoes Substack- My friend thinks it's a good idea for us to spend most of our time with AI companions- Is it irresponsible for academics to refuse to use AI?Mickey's Speak Now Regret Later Substack - AI Alarmism Trades on Fear, Not FactsMickey's provocative tweet on his recent paperDTG Previous Interview with Mickey on the Replication Crisis, Mindfulness, and Responsible HeterodoxyAndy Masley Substack debunking the AI water usage claimsAndy Masley Substack: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment - a cheat sheetPataranutaporn, P., Karny, S., Archiwaranguprok, C., Albrecht, C., Liu, A. R., & Maes, P. (2025). “My Boyfriend is AI”: A computational analysis of human–AI companionship in Reddit's AI community. arXiv.Critical response to Mickey's paper from Roy Schulam on Substack

01:00 Hated by All the Right People, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167109 05:00 David Pinsof: The Alliance Theory of Political Belief Systems, Meaning of Life, and Morality, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kMPxH0yxts 11:00 Tucker Carlson and the Unraveling of the Conservative Mind, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167104 18:00 Jewish Conservatives Are Terrified Of Tucker Carlson, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167099 26:00 What Will Life Be Like For Jews Under A President Tucker Carlson?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167131 34:00 The Rise Of Mike Benz, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167085 45:00 The New York Times Sells Elite Alliance Coordination, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167083 57:00 Why Do Elites Want To Restrict Speech?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167068 59:00 NYT: Genetic Data From Over 20,000 U.S. Children Misused for ‘Race Science', https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/24/us/children-genetics-race-science.html 1:15:00 The Pro-Israel Strategy, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167107 1:20:00 Matt Drudge – Alliance Accelerator, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167081 1:28:00 That Noble Dream: The ‘Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167115 1:36:00 The Holocaust in American Life, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167113 1:41:00 The Return Of The R-Word, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167121 1:47:00 The Return Of The N-Word, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167123 1:52:00 Why is the C-Word Widely Accepted in Australia But Rarely in America?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167125 1:56:00 Aussie Racism, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167127 2:01:30 The Nathan Cofnas Trajectory, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167049 2:07:00 Explaining the Ben Shapiro Trajectory, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167047 2:09:00 The Charlie Kirk Trajectory, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167045 2:12:00 How do you build a career fighting anti-semitism?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167042 2:15:00 How do you build a career as a Chabad rabbi if you are sent to a community with few Jews and no shuls?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167040 2:18:00 How do you build a career as a Modern Orthodox congregational rabbi?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167038 2:23:00 How Do You Build A Career In Talk Radio?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167038 2:30:00 How Do You Build A Career As A Right-Wing Pundit?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167033 2:33:00 How To Get Ahead In Academia, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167019 2:40:00 The Replication Crisis, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167017 2:45:00 Niall Ferguson once seemed like a serious scholar, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167015 2:50:00 National Review Struggles To Stay Relevant In The Age Of Trump, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167013 2:59:00 The Fox News Trajectory, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167011 3:04:00 What Drives Yoram Hazony & National Conservatism?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167008 3:10:00 The Fascism Charge In American Politics, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=167005 3:13:00 Never Trump & The Principled Conservatives, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=166963

In this festive descent into methodological despair, Chris and Matt convene a secret cabal of elite psychology podcasters within the Decoding Cloister, operating under the distant yet reassuring gaze of Arch-Wizard Paul Bloom, whose role is largely ceremonial but nonetheless morally binding.Joining them are Dave Pizarro (Very Bad Wizards) and Michael Inzlicht (Two Psychologists Four Beers, emeritus), for what can only be described as an end-of-year audit of social psychology's moral character.What follows is a mixture of intense hubris, disciplinary self-loathing, and revolutionary insights, delivered via one of the most sadistic Christmas quizzes ever devised. The quiz format allows the episode to do what psychology does best: create the feeling of measurement while hovering dangerously close to intuition.Alongside the quiz, we engage in some meta-commentary and sensemaking reflections on audience capture and the state of psychology-themed podcasts in 2025. In other words, it's Christmas, so naturally everyone is discussing perverse incentives, damaged reputations, and the slow moral corrosion of institutions.So join us, won't you? For the first International Congress on Psychology-Themed Podcasting and Gurus…LinksMickey's SubstackMickey's Work and Play LabTwo Psychologists Four BeersVery Bad WizardsUhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., & Diermeier, D. (2015). A person-centered approach to moral judgment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1), 72-81.Ovsyannikova, D., de Mello, V. O., & Inzlicht, M. (2025). Third-party evaluators perceive AI as more compassionate than expert humans. Communications Psychology, 3(1), 4.ReferencesAlter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 569–576.Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2003). The silence of the library: Environment, situational norm, and social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 18–28.Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: With special reference to the Stanford Prison Experiment. Cognition, 2(2), 243–256.Resnick, B. (2018, June 13). The Stanford Prison Experiment was massively influential. We just learned it was a fraud. Vox.Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails. University of Minnesota Press.

For three decades, conservatives abandoned science policy. Now they have a chance to rebuild it.That rebuilding effort comes with political challenges. Republicans' trust in science dropped thirty points over those decades. DOGE recently  slashed budgets at the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health. And HHS Sec RFK jr. is casting doubt on the efficacy of vaccines to the alarm of many Republicans in Congress. But beyond the politics, American science is also facing a competitive threat from China. The Middle Kingdom invests tens of billions in biotech and quantum computing, and outpaces the U.S. in PhD STEM grads.Meanwhile, American research became a system that rewards process over results. Researchers spend 42% of their time on paperwork. Only 46% of cancer studies could be replicated. And our guest today argues that perverse incentives and bureaucracy led to decades wasted on Alzheimer's research that turned out to be fraudulent—among other misfires.Ian Banks is Director of Science Policy at the Foundation for American Innovation, which recently established the science program he leads at the organization. He and Evan discuss his vision for a renewed conservative approach to science—one that learns from diversified investment portfolios that maintain safe bets while also making room for moonshots. They get into the political challenges created by hot button issues like climate change and COVID response, how to properly fund science in the era of DOGE, and what the proper role for politics in science should be.Previously, Banks served in research roles at the Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions, the American Enterprise Institute and as a legislative aide to Rep. Bill Posey, where he focused on science, energy, and health policy. His Oxford master's thesis examined the replication crisis, and he brings firsthand experience navigating these questions during COVID from his time working on the Hill.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is one of the country's top medical experts and a 24-year professor of medicine at Stanford. After being censored and deplatformed during COVID for his role in opposing harsh lockdowns, he was appointed Director of the National Institutes of Health by President Trump in 2025.a16z General Partners Erik Torenberg, Vineeta Agarwala, and Jorge Conde join Dr. Bhattacharya to discuss the administration's role in tackling the autism crisis, how to restore public trust in health authorities, how to make the NIH more dynamic and efficient, and how to streamline publishing and restore academic freedom.Timecodes: 0:00 Introduction1:30 Autism Initiative & New Research2:45 Drug Discoveries: Leucovorin & Tylenol Caution4:35 Preterm Birth & Broader Health Initiatives5:45 The Replication Crisis in Science8:50 Reforming NIH Funding & Scientific Culture14:00 Allocation vs. Execution at NIH17:30 Political & Scientific Decision-Making22:30 Addressing Life Expectancy & Chronic Disease27:00 Supporting Early Career Investigators34:50 Academic Freedom & Open Science37:30 Rebuilding Public Trust in Public Health41:00 Communicating Science Amid Uncertainty47:50 NIH Priorities: Nutrition, Chronic Disease, AI50:00 The Future of AI in Science & Medicine53:30 Advice for Rising Scientists55:00 The Role and Limits of AI in Science Resources:Find Dr. Bhattacharya on X: https://x.com/DrJBhattacharya and https://x.com/NIHDirector_JayFind Erik on X: https://x.com/eriktorenbergFind Jorge on X: https://x.com/JorgeCondeBioFind Vineeta on X: https://x.com/vintweetaLearn more about the NIH: https://www.nih.gov/ Stay Updated:Find a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Podcast on SpotifyListen to the a16z Podcast on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Why does a podcast about capitalism want to talk about science?Modern capitalism and science have evolved together since the Enlightenment. Advances in ship building and navigation enabled the Age of Discovery, which opened up new trade routes and markets to European merchants. The invention of the spinning jinny and cotton in the 18th century spurred textile production. The United States' Department of Defense research and development agency helped create the precursor to the internet. The internet now supports software and media industries worth trillions of dollars. On the flip side, some of America's greatest capitalists and businesses, including Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Bell Labs, gave us everything from electricity production to the transistor. Neither science nor capitalism can succeed without the other.However, science's star is now dimming. Part of this is due to political intervention. In the U.S., the federal government has cut funding for scientific research. The Covid-19 pandemic diminished the public's trust in scientific experts, which social media has exacerbated through misinformation. Restrictions on immigration may further hamper scientific research as some of the world's brightest minds lose access to funding and state-of-the-art facilities.But so too has capitalism played a hand in science's struggles. While corporations sponsor a significant portion of funding for scientific research, this funding too often comes with undisclosed conflicts of interest. Or corporate pressure may influence results in other ways.Stanford University professor John Ioannidis is a physician, writer, and one of the world's most-cited scientists. He studies the methodology and sociology of science itself: how the process and standards for empirical research influence findings in ways that some may find inaccurate. His 2005 essay "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" is one of the most accessed articles in the history of Public Library of Science (PLOS), with more than three million views. Ioannidis joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss the future of the relationship between capitalism and science, how both will have to respond to contemporary politics, and how one even conceptualizes robust measurements of scientific success.Listen:Science for Sale, with David Michaels: Learn how corporate-funded science uses doubt to its patrons' advantage.The Money Behind Ultra-Processed Foods, with Marion Nestle: Examine the role of Big Food in public health.The Capitalisn't of the U.S. COVID Response: Understand the factors that exacerbated the pandemic's fallout for the most vulnerable in society.Read:Food for Thought: An excerpt from the second edition of Marion Nestle's book, Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health.How Conflicts of Interest Shape Trust in Academic Work: What is the impact of various conflicts of interest on readers' trust in academic research findings? What are the implications for academia and policy?There's More Bias Than You Think: To protect the integrity of academia, we must also encourage the injection and consideration of new and contradictory unconflicted ideas.Academic Bias Under the Microscope: That scholarship often reflects conscious and unconscious biases has long been an open secret in academia. What are the sources of industry bias in economic and business research, and possible avenues of mitigation?“Doubt is Their Product”: The Difference Between Research and Academic Lobbying:Reflecting on the intersection of academic economics and policymaking – and advice to young scholars.Watch:John Ioannidis' Keynote at the Stigler Center Antitrust and Competition Conference 2025: Economic Concentration and the Marketplace of IdeasHow Conflicts of Interest Impact the Marketplace of Ideas: WebinarDe-Biasing Academic Research: Panel Discussion at the Stigler Center Antitrust and Competition Conference 2022 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this in-depth conversation, former Stanford professor and current director of the National Institutes of Health Jay Bhattacharya reflects on the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdowns, and the Great Barrington Declaration. We discuss the failures of science, politics, and media — and what really went wrong. A post-mortem on fear, truth, and authority in times of crisis.--Steun DNW en word patroon op http://www.petjeaf.com/denieuwewereld.Liever direct overmaken? Maak dan uw gift over naar NL61 RABO 0357 5828 61 t.n.v. Stichting De Nieuwe Wereld. Crypto's doneren kan via https://commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/31d3b502-6996-41f6-97aa-ef2958025fb8-- Bronnen en links bij deze uitzending: https://gbdeclaration.org/--00:00 Intro & Setup 01:50 Why the Great Barrington Declaration? 04:43 The Pandemic as a Philosophical Crisis 09:14 How Science Broke During COVID 13:00 Authority, Politics & Censorship 19:00 Introduction of Jay Bhattacharya 21:30 Early Warnings & First Reactions to Lockdowns 26:07 Lockdowns and the “Laptop Class” 28:30 Science vs. Politics – A Broken Relationship 32:43 The God Complex of Science 36:33 Sweden as a Counterexample 38:15 WHO, China & the Global Lockdown Model 41:40 Media, Mass Formation & Fear 47:00 What Went Wrong – And Why We Continued 50:00 Make America Healthy Again – New Vision 52:30 Replication Crisis in Science 55:40 Money, Power & Corruption in Institutions 57:10 Can the WHO Regain Trust? 01:02:20 Universities, Groupthink & Free Thought 01:05:11 Courage, Fear & Speaking Out 01:07:27 Message to the Next Generation 01:09:12 Keeping Our Humanity in Future Crises 01:11:00 Closing Reflections & Outro--De Nieuwe Wereld TV is een platform dat mensen uit verschillende disciplines bij elkaar brengt om na te denken over grote veranderingen die op komst zijn door een combinatie van snelle technologische ontwikkelingen en globalisering. Het is een initiatief van filosoof Ad Verbrugge in samenwerking met anchors Jelle van Baardewijk en Marlies Dekkers. De Nieuwe Wereld TV wordt gemaakt in samenwerking met de Filosofische School Nederland. Onze website: https://denieuwewereld.tv/ DNW heeft ook een Substack. Meld je hier aan: https://denieuwewereld.substack.com/

Joe Warne, PhD, is a researcher at the Technological University Dublin. Joe is a main driver behind the Sports Science Replication Centre, that aims to replicate studies in the field of sports science to critically evaluate the quality and validity of the research. Joe and his team recently published a large-scale study showing that only 28% of randomly selected studies could be replicated, which has led to great concerns regarding the quality and methodology in sports science, and could impact how we view and consume science. HIGHLIGHTS AND KEY TOPICS: What are the replication concerns in sports science, and why does it matter? How can coaches and athletes navigate scientific research, given the methodological issues that exist? How to discern between more and less credible findings in sports scienceThe underlying issues: publication bias, underpowered study designs, and questionable research practicesThe way forwardDETAILED EPISODE SHOWNOTES: We have detailed shownotes for all of our episodes. The shownotes are basically the podcast episode in written form, that you can read in 5-10 minutes. They are not transcriptions, but they are also not just surface-level overviews. They provide detailed insights and timestamps for each episode, and are great especially for later review, after you've already listened to an episode. Naturally, as great as they are, they do not cover absolutely everything in as great detail as we can do in a 45-90 minute podcast episode.  The shownotes for today's episode can be found at www.scientifictriathlon.com/tts468/LINKS AND RESOURCES: Joe's ResearchGate profileSports Science Replication Centre websiteReplication concerns in sports and exercise science: a narrative review of selected methodological issues in the field - Mesquida et al. 2022Estimating the Replicability of Sports and Exercise Science Research - Murphy et al. 2025Publication bias, statistical power and reporting practices in the Journal of Sports Sciences: potential barriers to replicability - Mesquida et al. 2023On the replicability of sports and exercise science research: assessing the prevalence of publication bias and studies with underpowered designs by a z-curve analysis - Mesquida et al. 2025A scoping review of the transparency, reporting practices and methodological rigor of meta-analyses published in Sports Medicine - Mesquida et al. 2025prevalence, reporting practices, and methodological quality of a priori power analyses in sports and exercise science research - Mesquida et al. 2025WHAT SHOULD I LISTEN TO NEXT?If you enjoyed this episode, I think you'll love the following episodes: Manuel Sola Arjona – The Nature of Training and complexity science | EP#437Balancing the art and the science of endurance training with Susan Sotir, PhD | EP#167The Skeptic's Guide To Sports Science with Nicholas Tiller, PhD | EP#239You can find our full episode archives here, where you can filter for categories such as Training, Racing, Science & Physiology, Swimming, Cycling, Running etc.You can also find separate archives for specific series of episodes I've done, specifically Q&A episodes, TTS Thursday episodes, and Beginner Tips episodes. LEARN MORE ABOUT SCIENTIFIC TRIATHLON: The Scientific Triathlon website is the home of That Triathlon Show and everything else that we doContact us through our contact form or email me directly (note - email/contact form messages get responded to much more quickly than Instagram DMs)Subscribe to our NewsletterFollow us on InstagramLearn more about our coaching, training plans, and training camps. We have something to offer for everybody from beginners to professionals. HOW CAN I SUPPORT THAT TRIATHLON SHOW (FOR FREE)? I really appreciate you reading this and considering helping the show! If you love the show and want to support it to help ensure it sticks around, there are a few very simple things you can do, at no cost other than a minute of your time. Subscribe to the podcast in your podcast app to automatically get all new episodes as they are released.Tell your friends, internet and social media friends, acquaintances and triathlon frenemies about the podcast. Word of mouth is the best way to grow the podcast by far! Rate and review the podcast (ideally five stars of course!) in your podcast app of choice (Spotify and Apple Podcasts are the biggest and most important ones).Share episodes online and on social media. Share your favourite episodes in your Instagram stories, start a discussion about interesting episodes on forums, reference them in your blog or Substack. SPONSORS: Precision Fuel & Hydration help athletes personalise their hydration and fueling strategies for training and racing. Use the free Fuel & Hydration Planner to get personalised plan for your carbohydrate, sodium and fluid intake in your next event. That Triathlon Show listeners get 15% off their first order of fuel and electrolyte products. Simply use this link and the discount will be auto-applied at the checkout.

Join hosts Eric Trexler and Eric Helms as they explore the potential "replication crisis" in exercise science, drawing parallels to the well-documented crisis in psychology. In this episode, they delve into the challenges of replicating research findings, the perils of placing too much confidence in singular studies, the importance of cautious interpretation of new studies, and the value of meta-analyses in understanding true effect sizes. Whether you're a seasoned lifter or new to the world of evidence-based practice, this conversation offers valuable insights into making informed decisions about your training. Time stamps: 00:00 – Introduction (and Helms' travel updates) 17:29 - Replication Crisis in Psychology: Discussion on the replication crisis observed in psychology and its implications. 32:45 – What is “replication” 44:36 – Results of “reproducibility project” in exercise science 1:00:04 – Why are replication rates so low in exercise science? 1:27:24 – What does this mean for “evidence-based fitness” and application of exercise science? Relevant links: www.massresearchreview.com https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26315443/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40522610/

Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize for proving we're not as rational as we think. In this timeless conversation we discuss how to think clearly in a world full of noise, the invisible forces that cloud our judgement, and why more information doesn't equal better thinking. Kahneman also reveals the mental model he discovered at 22 that still guides elite teams today.  Approximate timestamps:  (00:36) – Episode Introduction   (05:37) – Daniel Kahneman on Childhood and Early Psychology   (12:44) – Influences and Career Path   (15:32) – Working with Amos Tversky   (17:20) – Happiness vs. Life Satisfaction   (21:04) – Changing Behavior: Myths and Realities   (24:38) – Psychological Forces Behind Behavior   (28:02) – Understanding Motivation and Situational Forces   (30:45) – Situational Awareness and Clear Thinking   (34:11) – Intuition, Judgment, and Algorithms   (39:33) – Improving Decision-Making with Structured Processes   (43:26) – Organizational Thinking and Dissent   (46:00) – Judgment Quality and Biases   (50:12) – Teaching Negotiation Through Understanding   (52:14) – Procedures That Elevate Group Thinking   (55:30) – Recording and Reviewing Decisions   (57:58) – The Concept of Noise in Decision-Making   (01:01:14) – Reducing Noise and Improving Accuracy   (01:04:09) – Replication Crisis and Changing Beliefs   (01:08:21) – Why Psychologists Overestimate Their Hypotheses   (01:12:20) – Closing Thoughts and Gratitude Thanks to MINT MOBILE for sponsoring this episode: Get this new customer offer and your 3-month Unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at MINTMOBILE.com/KNOWLEDGEPROJECT. Newsletter - The Brain Food newsletter delivers actionable insights and thoughtful ideas every Sunday. It takes 5 minutes to read, and it's completely free. Learn more and sign up at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠fs.blog/newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Upgrade — If you want to hear my thoughts and reflections at the end of the episode, join our membership: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠fs.blog/membership⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and get your own private feed. Watch on YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@tkppodcast Photograph: Richard Saker/The Guardian Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, we're joined by Dr Joe Warne, founder of the Sports Sciences Replication Center (SSRC) and senior author of a landmark new study that should send shockwaves through the world of sports and exercise science. Joe and his team undertook an enormous replication effort—repeating the methods of previously published research to see if the results hold up. The outcome? Just 28% of the studies could be replicated. Even more striking, the effect sizes dropped by an average of 75% when replicated.This isn't just a dent in confidence—it's a crater. Scientific journals are trusted as sources of truth, yet Joe's work shows that the majority of findings in this field don't hold water. Perhaps even more concerningly, only 14% of original study authors were willing to share data or collaborate on replications.We dig into how the SSRC pulled off this monumental study, why so many findings failed to replicate, and what it reveals about the deep structural issues in the field. From academic incentives to publish fast and flashy, to the natural resistance researchers have to being challenged and falsified, we explore how these forces fuel unreliable and unreproducible science.Finally, we ask the tough question: what should coaches, athletes, and practitioners do when research can't be trusted? Joe shares his candid thoughts on how science must change—and what needs to happen to restore faith in the evidence base.This is a must-listen conversation on one of the most pressing issues in science today.LinksMore of Joe - if you join Discourse by making a small monthly pledge here, you can be like the cool kids and hang out with Joe in our VIP Community!Meta analysis in Strength and conditioningA webinar Joe Warne did on these issuesThe three replication papers:The proposal that outlines the selection of papers in more detailThe 28% paper that outlines the findingsReflections from Joe and some of the team on the process and findings Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is Episode 399 of Historically Thinking. And whenever the dial turns to 100, my thoughts turn towards what this podcast is about. So it seemed to me a good time to talk with Anton Howes. Anton Howes is official historian at the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce, a unique organization the subject his first book Arts and Minds: How the Royal Society of Arts Changed a Nation, which we'll have to have a conversation about one of these days. His substack is Age of Invention, which I highly recommend. Our conversation focuses on three essays he wrote nearly two years ago: "Cort Case"; "Does History Have a Replication Crisis?"; and "Open History". 

Is sustainable investing facing its own replication crisis? Listen to Jason Mitchell discuss with Professor Andrew King, Boston University, about what the replication crisis represents for sustainable finance; how to think about the incentive problems impacting academic research; and why academic journals and the academic-practitioner community need to be more open to the replication and challenge of existing studies.

In this episode, we discuss the replication crisis. By that we mean, when academics have re-run some behavioural science studies, they have found different results to the original experiment thereby invalidating it. We cover some of the most famous studies that need to be avoided and how you can have confidence in the findings that you're applying. 

This is the second episode of six in the special “Symposium Edition Podcast” of STLR Conversations. We are sharing the recordings of our symposium on “Judging Science,” which explores how the judiciary assesses and incorporates scientific and expert testimony in the US legal system.    Today, we are listening to Professor Edith Beerdsen from Temple University Beasley School of Law present on “The Replication Crisis.” Her work will be published in the upcoming Vol. 26 No. 2, “Symposium Edition,” of the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review in the spring.

  On this episode Razib talks to Jesse Singal, a journalist who has covered the social science beat for the last decade. Singal has an undergraduate degree in philosophy from University of Michigan and a master's in public affairs from Princeton. Currently a freelance journalist who writes his own Substack, Singal-Minded, and contributes to Blocked and Reported with Katie Herzog, Singal is formerly an editor at New York Magazine. His first book The Quick Fix: Why Fad Psychology Can't Cure Our Social Ills, covered the replication crisis. Razib and Singal first talk about what he learned, and unlearned, during his time as a reporter at New York Magazine, especially social psychology results that were long on glamor but short on robustness. They discuss how long we've known that social psychology had a problem, and whether it still hasn't reformed itself. Singal also reflects on his role in publicizing sexy findings, and how journalism has taken steps to be more careful lately. They also address some of the specific findings that came out of early 2010's social science, from implicit bias to power posing. Next, Razib asks Singal about youth gender medicine, and the major controversies over the last few years. Singal discusses the differences between female to male transitions as opposed to male to female, and relates the whole domain back to the replication crisis and the lack of good research. They also discuss political and social aspects, and where Singal sees youth gender medicine going in the next few years.

We chat about the events that started the replication crisis in psychology and Dorothy Bishop's recent resignation from the Royal Society Links * The resignation blogpost (http://deevybee.blogspot.com/2024/11/why-i-have-resigned-from-royal-society.html) from Dorothy Bishop * The bluesky post (https://bsky.app/profile/sarahwieten.bsky.social/post/3lbtsqc6jcs2z) from Sarah Weiten that asked the question, "If you had to cite an event that opened the "replication crisis" era, what would you point to?" * The "Year of Horrors" paper (https://www.ejwagenmakers.com/2012/Wagenmakers2012Horrors.pdf) from Eric-Jan Wagenmakers Other links Everything Hertz on Bluesky - Dan on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/dsquintana.bsky.social) - James on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/jamesheathers.bsky.social) - Everything Hertz on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/hertzpodcast.bsky.social) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff! $1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show $5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month Citation Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2024, Dec 3). 187: What started the replication crisis era?, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/EC7QH

Hour 3 for 11/19/24 Philip Truscott, Ph.D., joined Drew to discuss the rise of suicide and rape which follow the decline in religion (4:44). Then, Dr. Jeff Gardner broke down the replication crisis in elite institutions (30:31).  Links: https://jeffgardner.online/how-not-to-get-fooled-by-the-numbers/

Read the full transcript here. How much more robust have the social sciences become since the beginnings of the replication crisis? What fraction of replication failures indicate that the original result was a false positive? What do we know with relative certainty about human nature? How much of a difference is there between how people behave in a lab setting and how they behave out in the world? Why has there been such a breakdown of trust in the sciences over the past few decades? How can scientists better communicate uncertainty in their findings to the public? To what extent are replication failures a problem in the other sciences? How useful is the Implicit Association Test (IAT)? What does it mean if someone can predict how they'll score on the IAT? How do biases differ from associations? What should (and shouldn't) the IAT be used for? Why do replications often show smaller effect sizes than the original research showed? What is the Lifecycle Journals project?Brian Nosek co-developed the Implicit Association Test, a method that advanced research and public interest in implicit bias. Nosek co-founded three non-profit organizations: Project Implicit to advance research and education about implicit bias, the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science to improve the research culture in his home discipline, and the Center for Open Science (COS) to improve rigor, transparency, integrity, and reproducibility across research disciplines. Nosek is Executive Director of COS and a professor at the University of Virginia. Nosek's research and applied interests aim to understand why people and systems produce behaviors that are contrary to intentions and values; to develop, implement, and evaluate solutions to align practices with values; and, to improve research credibility and cultures to accelerate progress. Connect with him on Bluesky or LinkedIn, or learn more about him on the COS website. StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Episode SummaryBrett Pike, also known as Classical Learner, discusses his journey in creating Classical Learner and Homeschools Connected. He emphasizes the importance of teaching children critical thinking and discernment, especially in the face of media literacy education that promotes outsourcing thinking to authority. Brett shares his unique approach to education, which includes teaching history, logical fallacies, and propaganda. He also talks about the launch of Classical Learner Publishing and the expansion of their curriculum. Brett's goal is to provide alternative education options and empower parents and children to think for themselves. The conversation covers various topics including the impact of new technology, such as AI, on education, the replication crisis in modern science, the importance of teaching children financial literacy and entrepreneurship, and the need for individuals to take control of their own education and build alternative systems. The conversation also emphasizes the power of grassroots movements and individual actions in creating positive change.Chapters00:00 Introduction and Background03:47 Teaching Critical Thinking and Discernment06:11 Creating a New Path in Education10:35 Building an Alternative Education System25:54 The Journey of Classical Learner30:38 Exploring Blockchain and Cryptocurrency in Education37:25 Teaching Practical Skills and Critical Thinking39:16 The Impact of AI on Education43:20 The Replication Crisis in Science49:43 Homeschooling and Building Generational Wealth55:15 Empowering Children to Create and Make Things01:00:01 Taking Control of EducationIf you are a new parent, planning to become one or know someone with kids under the age of 12, this is a POWERFUL way to educate and teach the history of history and how to use discernment in the real world!CONNECT WITH BRETTIG - https://instagram.com/classicallearnerWeb - https://books.classicallearner.com/partner/11/10% OFF CODE: FreedomOto

This week Magnum & Izzo discuss "Moloch Game Theory", an idea that explains why society is completely f***ed in many areas. How do we stop Moloch? Listen and find out. EPISODE 122 OF THE SWERVE PODCAST ↩️

Today Carmelina is joined by Professor Uljana Feest, Philosopher of Psychology and Chair for Philosophy of Social Science and Social Philosophy at the Leibniz University of Hannover.  In this episode, Uljana discusses her work on the philosophy and history of psychology as it relates to the replication crisis. In a recent article ‘What is the Replication Crisis a Crisis Of?' Uljana proposes something is missing from current debates which typically focus on one of two positions. On one hand are those calling for reforms in methods, such as statistical reform, on the other are those calling for a focus on theory building. Uljana suggests that, while both positions get something right, there is more to the story. We also need to focus on the subject matter of psychology - on what phenomena or object we are interested in studying, in how we conceptualise those objects (‘memory' or ‘emotion', for example) and then differentiate between the broader object of study and the narrow effect analysed in our experiments.The transcript for this episode can be found here: https://www.hpsunimelb.org/post/s3-ep-11-uljana-feest-on-what-is-missing-in-replication-debatesRelevant linksUljana's Profile: Prof Uljana Feest | Leibniz University Hannover Article: Uljana Feest | 2024 | 'What is the Replication Crisis a Crisis Of?' | Philosophy of Science___________________________________________PhD Positions in HPS at the University of Melbourne. All are currently open for expressions of interest, with fully funded positions to start in 2025.Medical Humanities: PhD position for the Medical Humanities Research LabMetascience: PhD position for the MetaMelb Research InitiativeDeath Technologies: PhD position for the DeathTech Research Initiative Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast with your current hosts, Samara Greenwood and Carmelina Contarino. You can find more about us on our blog, website, bluesky, twitter, instagram and facebook feeds. This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne. HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org

At its simplest, Bayes's theorem describes the probability of an event, based on prior knowledge of conditions that might be related to the event. But in Everything Is Predictable, Tom Chivers lays out how it affects every aspect of our lives. He explains why highly accurate screening tests can lead to false positives and how a failure to account for it in court has put innocent people in jail. A cornerstone of rational thought, many argue that Bayes's theorem is a description of almost everything. But who was the man who lent his name to this theorem? How did an 18th-century Presbyterian minister and amateur mathematician uncover a theorem that would affect fields as diverse as medicine, law, and artificial intelligence? Fusing biography and intellectual history, Everything Is Predictable is an entertaining tour of Bayes's theorem and its impact on modern life, showing how a single compelling idea can have far reaching consequences. Tom Chivers is an author and the award-winning science writer for Semafor. Previously he was the science editor at UnHerd.com and BuzzFeed UK. His writing has appeared in The Times (London), The Guardian, New Scientist, Wired, CNN, and more. He was awarded the Royal Statistical Society's “Statistical Excellence in Journalism” awards in 2018 and 2020, and was declared the science writer of the year by the Association of British Science Writers in 2021. His books include The Rationalist's Guide to the Galaxy: Superintelligent AI and the Geeks Who Are Trying to Save Humanity's Future, and How to Read Numbers: A Guide to Stats in the News (and Knowing When to Trust Them). His new book is Everything Is Predictable: How Bayesian Statistics Explain Our World. Shermer and Chivers discuss: Thomas Bayes, his equation, and the problem it solves • Bayesian decision theory vs. statistical decision theory • Popperian falsification vs. Bayesian estimation • Sagan's ECREE principle • Bayesian epistemology and family resemblance • paradox of the heap • Reality as controlled hallucination • human irrationality • superforecasting • mystical experiences and religious truths • Replication Crisis in science • Statistical Detection Theory and Signal Detection Theory • Medical diagnosis problem and why most people get it wrong.

Peter Ridd is a geophysicist with over 100 publications and 35 years' experience working on the Great Barrier Reef and developed a wide range of world-first optical and electronic instruments for measuring environmental conditions near corals and other ecosystems. He was head of Physics at James Cook University for over a decade before being fired, in 2018, for questioning the quality assurance systems used by reef science institutions. Some of the poor-quality work relates to the effect, or lack of effect, of climate change, and agriculture, on the reef. Ridd now works, unpaid, with agricultural organisations, and the Institute of Public Affairs to improve quality assurance systems of “science” used by Australian governments to make environmental laws and regulations.   00:00 Introduction  00:37 The Great Barrier Reef: A Brief Overview 01:44 The Resilience and Health of the Reef 02:25 The Impact of Climate Change and Pollution on the Reef 02:55 The Physical Structure and Location of the Reef 04:42 Coral Growth Rates and the Impact of Temperature 09:03 The Alleged Impact of Farming on the Reef 12:17 The Future of the Reef and the Role of Young People 16:22 The Firing from James Cook University and the Fight for Quality Science 20:16 The Replication Crisis in Science and the Importance of Reliable Research 21:39 The Replication Crisis in Science 22:23 The Problem with Peer Review 23:11 The Decline of Scientific Debate 24:32 The Role of Social Media in Science 26:19 The Duty of Older Scientists 27:32 Emotion vs Objectivity in Science 29:39 The Need for New Scientific Institutions 30:09 The Role of Politicians in Science 35:38 The Future of Climate Skepticism 37:42 The Impact of Climate Alarmism on Society Slides for this podcast: https://tomn.substack.com/p/great-barrier-reef-information About Peter Ridd: https://co2coalition.org/teammember/peter-ridd/ Plato GBR: https://platogbr.com/ Reef Rebels YouTube:  https://realscience.org.au/reef-rebels/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@peterridd5844 Ridd's 2020 book: “REEF HERESY? Science, Research and the Great Barrier Reef”: https://www.amazon.com/HERESY-Science-Research-Great-Barrier/dp/192244930X/ March 2023, Rasmussen: 60% of likely U.S. voters agree that climate change has become a religion: https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/is_climate_change_a_false_religion ========= AI summaries of all of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summaries About Tom Nelson: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL89cj_OtPeenLkWMmdwcT8Dt0DGMb8RGR Twitter: https://twitter.com/TomANelson Substack: https://tomn.substack.com/ About Tom: https://tomn.substack.com/about

Our exciting first podcast sponsor:Alcami Elements - a premium herbal supplement for energy, focus, and concentration.https://www.alcamielements.com/products/alcami-elements-life-enhancing-beverageGet 10% off your first order or 30% off a monthly subscription using the code "illusion."---In this conversation, Jay Bhattacharya and Matthew Crawford discuss the corruption of science and the challenges it faces in the modern era. They explore the transformation of science from a small-scale, individual pursuit to a large-scale, corporate enterprise. They highlight the politicization of science and the influence of external entities on scientific research. The conversation also delves into the replication crisis in science and the need for reform. They propose alternative models, such as a review culture, to encourage independent thinking and foster a healthier scientific community. Jay Bhattacharya discusses the productivity of science, the centralization of science and politics, and the potential for decentralization as a solution. He highlights the challenge of attention and pre-selection in scientific research and the markers of quality in science. Bhattacharya also explores the advantages and disadvantages of centralized and decentralized models in science.---Chapters00:00 Introduction and Background07:46 The Transformation of Science11:45 The Authority of Science14:41 Science as an Authority-Giving Power18:11 The Corruption of Science23:46 The Intimidation Factor in Science26:27 Research Cartels and the Control of Resources29:57 The Replication Crisis and the Need for Reform36:38 Alternative Models: A Review Culture42:38 Analogizing Science to the Movie Industry46:03 The Role of Replication in Science50:33 The Social Nature of Science52:14 The Productivity of Science55:19 Centralization of Science and Politics56:22 Decentralization as a Solution57:32 The Challenge of Attention and Pre-Selection58:55 Markers of Quality in Science59:51 Centralized vs Decentralized Models01:00:16 Conclusion and GratitudeSubscribe to Matthew's Substack: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe

Learn more about Michael Wenderoth, Executive Coach: www.changwenderoth.comSHOW NOTES:Jeffrey Pfeffer is Professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford Business School. A year ago on 97% Effective, I discussed with Jeff his best-selling book, the 7 Rules of Power (HERE: https://tinyurl.com/3y56bzcz). In this episode, we go beyond his book, and get personal: We cover double-binds, intergender comparisons, leadership and likeability – and how Jeff's views on power have shifted over the past four decades. An honor to ask Jeff tough questions and expose more people to his thought-provoking work that challenges prevailing leadership advice -- and has shaped my own thinking and executive coaching practice.Two problems with the existing research literature on double-binds: Reward-interdependence and intergender comparisonsProjecting and Acting…Fake it until you become it“Practice and Get Coaching”Two critical points to keep in mind as you rise as a leader (Machiavelli's important insight that people forget)A lot of power is generated positionallyBeing liked vs. your responsibility as a leaderMichael's “zoom out” question: Where Jeff's views on power, over his career, have most shiftedWarmth vs competenceTwo book recommendationsComments on the replication crisis in the social sciences BIO AND LINKS:Jeffrey Pfeffer is the Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford Graduate School of Business where he has taught since 1979. He is the author or co-author of 16 books including his latest, the 7 Rules of Power. Jeffrey Pfeffer has published extensively in the fields of organization theory and human resource management. His current research focuses on the effects of work environments on human health and well-being, power and leadership in organizations, evidence-based management, the knowing-doing gap, and how thinking of time like money affects people's choices about spending time in ways that promote unhappiness.My previous interview with Jeff: https://tinyurl.com/3y56bzczJeff's website and Books: https://jeffreypfeffer.com/books/Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffrey-pfeffer-57a01b6/X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/JeffreyPfefferResearch on Reward Interdependence (Belmi and Pfeffer): https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-17089-001Carol Dweck, Growth Mindset: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691618804180Robert Cialdini's books, Pre-Suasion and Influence (new edition): https://www.influenceatwork.com/store-new/The Replication Crisis in the social science, the latest: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/09/they-studied-dishonesty-was-their-work-a-lieMichael's Book, Get Promoted: https://changwenderoth.com/#tve-jump-180481ecea3Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we are going to be talking about something called the “replication crisis.” Most people will not be familiar with this since it has been happening in academia but we promise it is not only quite intriguing and full of juicy details but it also has some pretty big implications for the larger society. So what is the replication crisis? In the past 15 years or so it has been discovered that many research findings in major academic journals actually don't hold up to scrutiny. When an academic publishes a study they are required to describe their research methodology in detail. If another researcher tries to conduct the same study using the same methodology, this is an attempt at “replication.” If the replication finds the same results, this is further evidence that the original study was on to something. If they don't find the same results, it suggests that the original study may not have found the thing that it had claimed to find. In 2005, John Ioannidis, a professor in the Stanford University School of Medicine, published an article that got a lot of attention titled, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” In it he wrote that: “There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. . . this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.” Then, in 2011, there was a significant controversy over a paper by social psychologist Daryl Bem that claimed that people can have “precognition,” or ESP, and backed up this claim using the accepted methods of his field of psychology. This led many researchers to question dominant research methods, how the peer review process could fail so miserably, and whether this problem was much bigger than a few papers. In 2015, researchers published an article in the prestigious journal Science in which they detailed their attempts to reproduce 100 psychology studies. Alarmingly, they found that they were only able to successfully replicate 39 of those studies. Other similar efforts since then have also shown that many major published studies that have become accepted facts cannot be replicated and should be called into question. Over the past few years, academic fields have been grappling with the replication crisis and debating ways to strengthen the guardrails in academic research and publishing so that fewer flawed studies become accepted knowledge. On this Utterly Moderate episode we are joined by Rutgers University psychologist and friend of the show Dr. Lee Jussim to discuss all of this. Don't forget to subscribe to our FREE NEWSLETTER! The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Audio: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “By Grace” by Podington Bear (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today, Will sits down with Max Korbmacher, Thomas Rhys Evans, and Flavio Azevedo, some of the authors of the paper "The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes" to talk about the paper, FORRT, and Open Science communities. Show notes: The paper we discuss for this episode: Korbmacher, M., Azevedo, F., Pennington, C. R., Hartmann, H., Pownall, M., Schmidt, K., ... & Evans, T. (2023). The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes. Nature Communications Psychology, 1(1), 3. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-023-00003-2 FORRT – The Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training: https://forrt.org Getting involved with FORRT: https://forrt.org/about/get-involved/ Charlotte Pennington's new book: A Student's Guide to Open Science: Using the Replication Crisis to Reform Psychology https://www.mheducation.co.uk/a-student-s-guide-to-open-science-using-the-replication-crisis-to-reform-psychology-9780335251162-emea-group UK Reproducibility Network: https://www.ukrn.org/ Project Teaching Integrity in Empirical Research (TIER): https://www.projecttier.org/ Reproducibility Wiki: https://replication.uni-goettingen.de/ Paper Trail: https://thepapertrailjc.squarespace.com/ Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS): https://bids.neuroimaging.io/ Collaborative Replication Education Project (CREP): https://www.crep-psych.org/ The Center for Open Science: https://www.cos.io/ Nowhere Lab: http://nowherelab.com/ Advancing Big-team Reproducible Science through Increased Representation (ABRIR): https://abrirpsy.org/ Open Life Science: https://openlifesci.org/ Turing Way: https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/index.html For more info go to ReproducibiliTea.org For comments, questions, tips and tricks use our feedback form: forms.gle/H6jgUzbbpyauLxUC8

Michael Brant Shermer is an American science writer, historian of science, executive director of The Skeptics Society, and founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, a publication focuses on investigating pseudoscientific and supernatural claims. We discuss the limitations of certainty in science, the pitfalls of reliance upon consensus, and the benefits and dangers of supernatural beliefs, and the association of science with state-crafting. Support both us when you pick up on of Michael's books: https://amzn.to/3QHjQkN (00:00:00) Go! (00:00:17) Who is Michael Shermer (00:08:08) real ASK (00:09:12) Patreon Ask (00:24:58) Is Woo Stuff Good for People? (00:32:23) Replication Crisis & Misplaced Faith in Science (00:50:09) Trust the Science (01:02:12) Centralizing Narratives (01:13:17) Marker 15 (01:22:26) What's in the water? (01:37:30) There's more to life than Algebra (01:45:13) Rationality isn't everything (01:55:18) Nurturing intuition (02:04:55) Mass hysteria (02:16:44) The Overswing (02:28:15) Closing thoughts Support the scientific revolution by joining our Patreon: https://bit.ly/3lcAasB Tell us what you think in the comments or on our Discord: https://discord.gg/MJzKT8CQub #science #uap #belief Check our short-films channel, @DemystifySci: https://www.youtube.com/c/DemystifyingScience AND our material science investigations of atomics, @MaterialAtomics https://www.youtube.com/@MaterialAtomics Join our mailing list https://bit.ly/3v3kz2S PODCAST INFO: Anastasia completed her PhD studying bioelectricity at Columbia University. When not talking to brilliant people or making movies, she spends her time painting, reading, and guiding backcountry excursions. Shilo also did his PhD at Columbia studying the elastic properties of molecular water. When he's not in the film studio, he's exploring sound in music. They are both freelance professors at various universities. - Blog: http://DemystifySci.com/blog - RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/2be66934/podcast/rss - Donate: https://bit.ly/3wkPqaD - Swag: https://bit.ly/2PXdC2y SOCIAL: - Discord: https://discord.gg/MJzKT8CQub - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DemystifySci - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/DemystifySci/ - Twitter: https://twitter.com/DemystifySci MUSIC: -Shilo Delay: https://g.co/kgs/oty671

In this week's episode, we're sharing a talk given by BSI co-founder Greg Glassman in April 2023. Roughly 500 people gathered to hear about The Broken Science Initiative which was cohosted by Hillsdale College's Academy for Science and Freedom and BSI.   Glassman explains, there are significant widespread issues within many areas of science, specifically within social sciences and medicine. In these areas, we are witnessing a shift towards pleasing gatekeepers and promoting industry interests. Glassman expresses his concern about the adverse impact this has had on medicine, as entire departments and fields have fallen victim to what he calls "epistemic debasement."   Glassman shares personal anecdotes from his childhood. Reflecting on his own educational trajectory, he talks about his father, Jeff Glassman, who was the head of research and development at Hughes Aircraft Company.  Visit our webiste: https://brokenscience.org/

In this episode, Paul and David dive into the controversy surrounding the very public failings of scientific psychology--the so-called "replication crisis". Why did it happen, how has it changed how we view (and teach) about our field, and are we optimistic about the future of psychology? Read the book that inspired the podcast: "Psych: The Story of the Human Mind (https://amzn.to/3YoZDAa)" [amazon.com] Email us with your psychology questions for a future episode!: askpsychpod@gmail.com

Slowing aging by a couple of percents would save more money than curing any single disease, be it cancer, heart disease, or diabetes. Aging is, in fact, the major risk factor that all these diseases have in common. For this reason, slowing aging becomes the most efficient path to a sustainable and healthy future for humanity. To get this message out we started The Aging Science podcast. We will bring you interviews and frank conversations with leading experts in the field of longevity, as well as evidence-based health advice to support you on this journey. This podcast is brought to you by VitaDAO and Kamil Pabis, MSc (the @Aging_Scientist on Twitter). In this podcast, I (@aging_scientist) had the pleasure of interviewing Asst. Prof Alaattin Kaya (@akay_lab). We talked about recent breakthroughs in the field, the difficulties of getting funding for risky and novel research, funding agencies, “fishing expeditions”, the importance of overexpression genetic screens in aging research, novel mechanisms of action, and the replication crisis.

The Other Side of the Story with Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris – “There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.” This is called the Replication Crisis, and it has contaminated, either by...

In today's episode, we pull relevant quotes from past guests (namely John Cochrane, Gene Fama, and Jonathan Berk) to extricate who should own market cap funds. We look at the variable risks of value stocks and factor investing and hear counter-views on owning the market. We also delve into the hot topic of tax loss selling, with an overview of a recent Financial Analyst Journal paper on loss harvesting outcomes, sorted by investor profiles. This episode will get you up to date on the biggest finance news of the week, from crypto collapses to Amazon's catapulting gains and losses. Tune in to hear all of this and more, including a recap of our conversation with Dave Goetsch and our Financial Literacy Month book reviews.    Key Points From This Episode:   A neat way to keep track of the value of your purchases over time. (0:00:33) The results of the Rational Reminder financial literacy survey. (0:02:44) An overview of this episode's topics. (0:05:45) Who should invest in market cap-weighted index funds. (0:07:28) How to determine whether you're different from the average investor. (0:16:13) Gene Fama's take on the possibility of identifying state factors. (0:22:13) The variable risks of value stocks. (0:23:25) What drives people to increase their value tilts over time. (0:25:11) The risks of factor investing, and trading in general. (0:28:26) Jonathan Berk's take on owning the market. (0:31:53) A summary of who should invest in total market index funds. (0:33:20) The big crypto news of the week! (0:38:21) Other significant market news. (0:42:17) An overview of a recent Financial Analyst Journal paper on loss harvesting outcomes, sorted by investor profiles. (0:44:59) Our book reviews for Financial Literacy Month. (0:55:15) A recap of our conversation with Dave Goetsch. (1:01:47) A few of our listeners' reviews. (1:02:50)   Participate in our RR CE Credits Survey: https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=xVA-B3TS3UeuUte5Yx-hRi0Vpj3fzvhNpOTm6eRMYJ5UN0tOM1A5MFdPQzJFT1hZOTJLN1pHRVFYSS4u Participate in our Community Discussion about this Episode: https://community.rationalreminder.ca/t/episode-227-who-should-invest-in-cap-weighted-index-funds-discussion-thread/20230 Books From Today's Episode: The Geometry of Wealth: How to shape a life of money and meaning — https://amzn.to/3Od9J3N Retirement Income for Life: Getting More without Saving More — https://amzn.to/3GpkHRN We're Talking Millions!: 12 Simple Ways to Supercharge Your Retirement — https://amzn.to/3UI3uaE Common Sense on Mutual Funds — https://amzn.to/3AjUsIM The Investment Answer: Learn to Manage Your Money and Protect Your Financial Future — https://amzn.to/3UWeSPM Money Like You Mean It: Personal Finance Tactics for the Real World — https://amzn.to/3g9bT7Q Links From Today's Episode: Rational Reminder on iTunes — https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-rational-reminder-podcast/id1426530582. Rational Reminder Website — https://rationalreminder.ca/  Shop Merch — https://shop.rationalreminder.ca/ Join the Community — https://community.rationalreminder.ca/ Follow us on Twitter — https://twitter.com/RationalRemind Follow us on Instagram — @rationalreminder Benjamin on Twitter — https://twitter.com/benjaminwfelix Cameron on Twitter — https://twitter.com/CameronPassmore 'An Intertemporal Capital Asset Pricing Model' — https://www.jstor.org/stable/1913811 'Risk and Return of Value Stocks' — https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=112553 'The Value Premium' — https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=351060 'A Consumption-Based Explanation of Expected Stock Returns' — https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1146&context=fnce_papers 'Who Are the Value and Growth Investors?' — https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2426823 'Is There a Replication Crisis in Finance?' — https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3774514 'Amazon Becomes World's First Public Company to Lose $1 Trillion in Market Value' — https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-09/amazon-hits-unwelcome-milestone-with-1-trillion-in-value-lost?leadSource=uverify%20wall  

For years now, the utility of the P-value in scientific and statistical research has been under scrutiny – the debate shaped by concerns about the seeming over-reliance on p-values to decide what's worth publishing or what's worth pursuing. In 2016 the American Statistical Association released a statement on P-values, meant to remind readers that, “The P-values was never intended to be a substitute for scientific reasoning.” The statement also laid out six principles for how to approach P-values thoughtfully. The impact of that statement is the focus of this episode of Stats and Stories with guest Robert Matthews. Robert Matthews is a visiting professor in the Department of Mathematics, Aston University in Birmingham, UK. Since the late 1990s, as a science writer, he has been reporting on the role of NHST in undermining the reliability of research for several publications including BBC Focus, and working as a consultant on both scientific and media issues for clients in the UK and abroad. His latest book, Chancing It: The Laws of Chance and How They Can Work for You is available now. His research interests include the development of Bayesian methods to assess the credibility of new research findings – especially “out of the blue” claims; A 20-year study of why research findings fade over time and its connection to what's now called “The Replication Crisis”; Investigations of the maths and science behind coincidences and “urban myths” like Murphy's Law: “If something can go wrong, it will”; Applications of Decision Theory to cast light on the reliability (or otherwise) of earthquake predictions and weather forecasts; The first-ever derivation and experimental verification of a prediction from string theory. New episodes of Stats+Stories is returning next week.

In this episode, we talk about the (seemingly) science ending problem that is the Replication Crisis. Oh no! Enjoy!

During the COVID pandemic you heard scientists dismissing certain kinds of evidence as anecdotal. On this journey, Dr. G explains the difference between scientific and anecdotal evidence. He also talks about when, whether, and to what extent anecdotal evidence should be taken seriously -- not just by scientists but by you. "The Replication Crisis" on Dr. G's YouTube Channel Dr. G wants to hear from you! So join the conversation with him and your fellow travelers NOW on his FACEBOOK PAGE. Or email Dr. G directly by clicking HERE. PRE-ORDER DR. G's NEWEST BOOK! Believing is Seeing. *Tyndale *Books-A-Million *ChrsistianBook *Amazon *B&N Science+God is sponsored in part by Dwell Bible App. Save 30% off Dwell for Life at DwellApp.io/drg.

Unlocking this episode from the Patreon feed. If you want a deep-dive episode once a week, sign up for $5/month at https://www.patreon.com/pauseforparrots A group of researchers have discovered that there's a huge reproducibility issue in science. From cancer research to social psychology, this replication crisis is calling a lot of our assumptions about the way things work into question. David walks Tony and Felipe through the problem and they discuss the implications it has on everything from culture war ideology to government policy.

During the COVID pandemic you heard scientists dismissing certain kinds of evidence as anecdotal. On this journey, Dr. G explains the difference between scientific and anecdotal evidence. He also talks about when, whether, and to what extent anecdotal evidence should be taken seriously -- not just by scientists but by you. "The Replication Crisis" on Dr. G's YouTube Channel Dr. G wants to hear from you! So join the conversation with him and your fellow travelers now on his FACEBOOK PAGE. Or email Dr. G directly by clicking HERE. PRE-ORDER DR. G's NEWEST BOOK! Believing is Seeing. *Tyndale *Books-A-Million *ChrsistianBook *Amazon *B&N

It's been a while but don't worry the DtG elves have been hard at work and a veritable bounty of content is on its way. The long-promised Jaron Lanier decoding is on its way next week, but this week the cross-overs continue as we are joined by Mickey Inzlicht, esteemed Psychologist, Research Excellence Faculty Scholar at the University of Toronto, and long term (retired) co-host of the Two Psychologists, Four Beers podcast. Mickey has now hung up his podcasting headphones but like an old prizefighter, we were able to lure him back into the limelight one last time with promises of unlimited booze and global fame. To keep Mickey from realising we could provide neither, we then subjected him to an unrelenting barrage of questions for almost two hours. Under our relentless questioning, Mickey gave up the goods on some precious long-buried information, including what it's like to work with Jordan Peterson, the details on his campaign to destroy introspection, and what he really thinks of the Gurus. We also manage to discuss some serious stuff like the state of contemporary psychology, the impact of the replication crisis, whether preregistration is always beneficial (it is, don't listen to Matt!), and to resolve the fundamental nature of the Self! Mickey is a wise egg, a funny guy, and a veteran podcaster and we really enjoyed this conversation so we hope you will too! Stick around at the end for some Tamler themed feedback and more pronunciation errors than you can shake a stick at. Back next week with Jaron Lanier! Links http://michaelinzlicht.com/ (Mickey's Homepage) https://www.fourbeers.com/27 (Two Psychologists Four Beers 27: Against Mindfulness) https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html (Bernard Schiff's Article on Jordan Peterson for the Toronto Star: I was Jordan Peterson's strongest supporter. Now I think he's dangerous.) https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/1864-9335/a000398 (Inzlicht, M., & Friese, M. (2019). The past, present, and future of ego depletion. Social Psychology.) Friese, M., Loschelder, D. D., Gieseler, K., Frankenbach, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2019). Is ego depletion real? An analysis of arguments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(2), 107-131. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-emotion-study-breached-ethical-guidelines-researchers-say (Guardian article about that Facebook Study) https://myresearchspace.uws.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/10993811/2018_12_13_Hoehl_et_al_Over_Imitation.pdf (Hoehl, S., Keupp, S., Schleihauf, H., McGuigan, N., Buttelmann, D., & Whiten, A. (2019). ‘Over-imitation': A review and appraisal of a decade of research. Developmental Review, 51, 90-108.)

Tune in to hear:- Has Kurt ever noticed a problem that isn't ostensibly behavioral in nature that ended up being behavioral?- How can we craft a cohesive work culture without contributing to problems like group think?- From a leadership perspective, how can we open ourselves up to new ideas and not fall prey to confirmation bias? Also, if we are the person that's going to question the status quo of an organization - how can we do that in a way that it's likely to get picked up?- What is a when-then rule and how can it help us make better decisions?- What is one thing that Kurt has learned from a guest on his podcast, Behavioral Grooves, that surprised him or that he has since applied in his own life?- What is something he has changed his mind about since he began hosting the podcast?- What are one or two behavioral changes the average person could make to improve their life?https://twitter.com/whatmotivateshttps://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwnelsonCompliance Code: 0781-OAS-5/5/2022 

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Solving the replication crisis (FTX proposal), published by Michael Wiebe on April 25, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Here's my rejected FTX proposal (with Abel Brodeur) to solve the replication crisis by hiring full-time replicators. (I left out the budget details.) Please describe your project in under 100 words. We will actually solve the replication crisis in social science by hiring a “red team” of quantitative researchers to systematically replicate new research. Currently, there are few penalties for academics and journals that publish unreliable research, because few replications are attempted. We will fundamentally change academic incentives by making researchers know that their work will be scrutinized, which will motivate them to improve research design, or else face a loss of reputation. By fixing scientific institutions now, we can reap the compounding benefits of reliable knowledge over the long-term future. If the project has a website, what's the URL? Please describe what you are doing very concretely—not just goals and long-term vision, but specifically what you are doing in the next few months. Currently, the Institute for Replication is using volunteers to systematically reproduce and replicate new studies from leading journals in economics and political science. With funding from FTX, we can hire a Project Scientist (Michael Wiebe), post-docs, and research assistants to massively scale-up reproductions and replications. We can also launch a cash prize for completed replications, to incentivize even more replications. This can be implemented in several ways; for example, giving a prize of ~$1000 for high quality replications completed using the Social Science Reproduction Platform, as judged by a panel of experts. What's the case for your project? Social science is facing a replication crisis. Researchers produce unreliable findings that often do not replicate, and the root problem is the lack of replications. Academics have basically no incentive to perform replications, since they usually do not yield original findings, and are not valued by journals. Since they do not lead to publications, replications do not help academics get tenure, and hence few are attempted. The replications that are done are conducted by volunteers in their spare time, and can even have negative career effects if they upset powerful academics. The rareness of replications causes peer review to be an inadequate form of quality control. Knowing that research won't be closely scrutinized, journals and referees have little incentive to check for data quality issues, coding errors, or robustness. If a paper with unreliable findings gets published, the journal suffers no loss in reputation, because no one will replicate the paper to expose its flaws. Hence, referees take empirical results at face value, and focus instead on framing the research question and appropriately citing the literature. Knowing that their work will not be reproduced nor replicated, most researchers don't invest time in preparing replication packages, and don't check for data or coding errors. The result is entire fields with serious reproducibility problems. We can fix these incentives by investing heavily in reproduction and replication, and making a big push to systematically replicate new research. With a team of full-time replicators and cash prizes for completed replications, researchers will now expect their work to be immediately scrutinized as a regular practice. This scrutiny will put researchers' reputations on the line: if their findings are not robust, their work will not be cited (or worse, be retracted), ultimately affecting their promotion and tenure outcomes. At the same time, high-quality work will be rewarded. A big push will attract widespread attention to amplify these reputati...

Vincent Harinam is a data scientist, law enforcement consultant, and frequent writer on the modern dating market for publications like Quillette. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge, where he currently teaches. In this episode, we chat about unsettling dating statistics, the manosphere, what (wo)men find desirable, and the bridge between data science and law enforcement. www.petersonacademy.com _____________ Articles by Vincent: https://quillette.com/author/vincent-harinam Follow him on Twitter: https://twitter.com/vincentharinam _____________ Follow Me On _____________ All Platforms: https://linktr.ee/mikhailapeterson Facebook: https://facebook.com/mikhailapete​rson Twitter: https://twitter.com/MikhailaAleksis​​ Instagram: https://instagram.com/mikhailapeterson Telegram: https://t.me/mikhailapeterson​​ _____________ Chapters _____________ [0:00] Intro [3:35] Harinam's Career & Personality [5:59] Data Science & Law Enforcement [11:08] Husband-Outearning Women [14:02] 'Dark Gentlemen' [16:38] Agreeableness, Wage-Gaps, & Personality Tests [19:38] IQ & Marriage [23:08] Desires vs. Availability [24:34] Relationship Backlash [26:39] Changes in Mate Selection [28:16] The Red Pill, Manosphere, & Rollo Tomassi [32:54] Fixing the Sexual Marketplace? [37:33] Simps, etc. [41:07] Game Theory [42:57] Understanding Statistics [43:14] Replication Crisis [43:50] Geeks vs. Nerds [46:17] Vincent the Crime Solver [46:59] Inside Healthy Relationships [59:35] Top 2 Things Humans Have [1:00:53] The Future of Western Dating? [1:03:03] How Societies Decline [1:06:32] Outro #Dating #IQ #Data #DarkTriad #RedPill #Statistics

Why did Pete forgo a career in science to focus upon Aussie English?In Conversation #67 Pete and I discuss: preparing for podcast interviews, some of the problems with scientific studies, people behaving in a false/lying manner, how cryptocurrencies are gaining steam, if the future is all about electric cars and other innovation, what he has been reading/listening to recently and some nerdy linguistic talk about English.As always, we hope you enjoy. Mere Mortals out!Timeline:(0:00) - How much research prep to do?(4:43) - Foreign accents are judged as less trustworthy(9:05) - Studies that can't be replicated(26:14) - Biases in Science(35:35) - Why Pete didn't pursue a scientific career?(40:48) - The falsity of Hollywood(46:32) - Body language & lying(52:37) - Australian Covid news(1:00:58) - Crypto for beginners(1:09:58) - Bitcoin & climate change(1:14:42) - Electric cars & meatless meat(1:22:13) - Is it a hopeful future?(1:31:29) - Michael Schermer(1:33:44) - Less podcast, more hobbies(1:35:40) - English language facts(1:41:44) - Don't sleep there are snakes(1:49:36) - Aussie EnglishConnect with Pete:Website: https://aussieenglish.com.au/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/australia_english/Connect with Mere Mortals:Website: https://www.meremortalspodcast.com/Discord: https://discord.gg/jjfq9eGReUInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/meremortalspodcast/