Podcasts about Replication crisis

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

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.

Are philosophy and science entirely different paradigms for thinking about the world? Or should we think of them as continuous: overlapping in their concerns and complementary in their tools?David Papineau is a professor at Kings College London and the author of over a dozen books. He's thought about many topics — consciousness, causation the arrow of time, the interpretation of quantum mechanics — and in all of these he advocates engagement with science. The philosopher should take its cue from our best theories of nature.For example, a philosophical account of causation must pay attention to the way this concept is used in the sciences.But the philosopher can also be a servant of science. Philosophers are undaunted, excited even, by apparent paradoxes and where such thorny problems pop up in science this is where philosophical tools can be brought to bear. For instance, when quantum mechanics appears to suggest cats are alive and dead, the philosopher's interest is piqued (even as the physicist's attention may wane). David's website Transcript and notes on Multiverses.xyzChapters(00:00) Intro(02:41) Start of conversation(02:46) Unraveling the Mystery of Scientific Methods(03:45) The Shift in Philosophy of Science(04:03) The Role of Truth in Scientific Investigation(05:34) The Evolution of Scientific Methodologies(06:32) The Arrogance of Philosophy in Science(08:58) The Progress of Science and its Challenges(10:21) The Role of Data in Scientific Disputes(11:26) The Struggle of Early Modern Science(14:52) The Continuity of Philosophy and Science(15:28) The Role of Philosophy in Resolving Theoretical Contradictions(18:08) The Replication Crisis in Science(32:15) The Asymmetry of Time & Thermodynamics(42:45) The Everlasting Role of Philosophy in Science?(42:53) Philosophy and Its Puzzling Subjects(43:55) Artificial Intelligence & Philosophy(44:39) The Turing Test and AI(45:18) The Consciousness of AI(46:11) The Mystery of Consciousness(46:51) Is there a fact of the matter to consciousness?(48:59) The Consciousness of Machines(50:13) Different takes on consciousness(51:43) The Consciousness of Artificial Intelligence(53:23) Consciousness & Emergence(53:59) The Moral Standing of AI(01:05:23) The Future of Causation Studies

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 of Better Thinking, Nesh Nikolic speaks with Alexander Holcombe about the replication crisis, trust in science, and the causes of the replication crisis. Alex Holcombe is a professor at the University of Sydney, who received his PhD in psychology from Harvard University in 2000. He has a strong interest in improving scientific practices and has been involved in the Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-research and Open Science, the Free Journal Network, PLoS ONE, the WikiJournal of Science, and the creation of the tenzing.club web app to promote scientific collaboration. As well as doing meta-science, Alex conducts psychology experiments on topics such as how humans keep track of moving objects. Episode link at https://neshnikolic.com/podcast/alexander-holcombeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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...

The Other Side of the Story with 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

00:30 Tucker Carlson says the Dems hate you 15:00 The Epidemic's Wrongest Man - Alex Berenson, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-wrongest-man/618475/ 21:00 The KMG Show EP 494 Monkeypox: AIDS 2?, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQrpXD0hlnQ 28:00 The Guru Playbook, https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/the-guru-playbook/13370440 32:00 Global health talks clouded by conspiracy theories about pandemic treaty, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/22/wha-who-pandemic-treaty/ 40:00 Tucker is wrong about WHO conspiracy, https://fortune.com/2022/05/20/world-health-organization-pandemic-treaty-tucker-carlson-tedros-covid-monkeypox-hepatitis-ebola/ 47:00 Biden says USA will go to war for Taiwan, https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/biden-america-will-defend-taiwan/ 1:03:00 Michael Inzlicht on Jordan Peterson, the Replication Crisis, Mindfulness, and Responsible Heterodoy, https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/interview-with-michael-inzlicht-on-the-replication-crisis-mindfulness-and-responsible-heterodoy 1:10:00 Kamala Harris - wine mom 1:14:00 Best rape alarms, https://www.bestreviews.guide/alarm-for-women?loc_redirect=UK 1:19:00 Humour me: why we laugh and what counts as funny, https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/psychology-of-comedy-why-we-laugh-and-what-counts-as-funny/13789304 1:20:00 Incongruity 1:21:00 Using humor to demonstrate our superiority 1:23:00 The Racialization of Transit Police Responses to Fare Evasion, https://www.american.edu/spa/news/spa-professors-examine-racialized-responses-to-metro-fare-evasion.cfm 1:30:30 Metaphysics and Parasociality, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43P0BDYwWoY 1:42:00 Vaccines Are Still Mostly Blocking Severe Disease, https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2022/05/covid-vaccine-effectiveness-severe-disease/629955/ 1:53:00 Meditation shows us our unruly minds 1:58:00 The Ayahausca experience of seeing a jaguar 2:00:00 Mickey Kaus On Replacing Great Replacement Theory, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt7ofT4ExJM 2:05:00 Adult Children of Alcoholics Syndrome: A Step By Step Guide To Discovery And Recovery, https://www.amazon.com/Adult-Children-Alcoholics-Syndrome-Discovery/dp/0553272799 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization%27s_response_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Reception https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-taiwan-and-the-who-world-health-assembly-biden-administration-antony-blinken-beijing-11652909009?mod=hp_opin_pos_6 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world-is-likely-sicker-than-it-has-been-in-100-years-11644057003 Covid deaths WHO: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-61327778 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/21/business/world-economic-forum-davos-accomplish.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/13/business/china-zero-covid-xi.html https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-wrongest-man/618475/ https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world-is-likely-sicker-than-it-has-been-in-100-years-11644057003 https://www.unz.com/isteve/johnny-depp-is-winning-over-his-ex-wife-amber-heard-in-the-court-of-public-opinion-and-thats-just-wrong-because-ms-heard-is-a-woman/ https://fakenous.net/?p=2983

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

In this episode of Opinionated Science, the team discuss a new advance that uses a microscopic worm to sniff out lung cancer, why caffeine is being investigated to treat ADHD and a stats study that may undermine an important area of neuroscience.   Read more from this podcast:  "Worm-on-a-Chip" Device Could Help Diagnose Lung Cancer Could Caffeine Help To Alleviate Some Symptoms of ADHD? Stats Study Reveals Reason for Replication Crisis in Neuroscience

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/

On Christmas Eve December 2020, the World Health Organisation named Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) and health inequities as 2 of the 10 global health threats to track in 2021. In 2019, we worked with the Health Quality and Safety Commission (HQSC) and PHARMAC to see how we can tackle both in Aotearoa New Zealand. The results of this work have just been published in the New Zealand Medical Journal, so we wanted to dedicate this episode of Inside the Nudge Unit to it.  Peer-reviewed articles allow us to present the rigorous work that goes into running a Behavioural Insights (BI) project. However, journal articles often remove the work from its broader context and leave little space for describing the tribulations that go into running BI trials. In this episode, we cover the story of how the trial developed, and how it built on our earlier work in the UK and the work done by the Behavioural Economics Research Team in the Australian Department of Health (BERT) and the Behavioural Economics Team of the Australian government (BETA).  We discuss how health inequities in Aotearoa New Zealand meant that we couldn't just copy the letters used in the UK and Australia, and take a quick detour into the replication crisis. You'll hear from Michael Hallsworth, who led the work in the UK, Janice Wilson, the CEO of the HQSC, Rawiri Jansen, a GP and member of the project's working group, and Nathan Chapell, who developed the letters we used in the project.  Further reading If you would like to read more about health inequities in New Zealand, you can read the paper mentioned by Rawiri Jansen here, as well as its follow up here. You can also read about the follow up to the UK study here, and the follow up to the Australian study here.  If you are interested in learning more about the replication crisis, we would recommend this article. And if you would like to learn more about issues related to generalising studies from one area to another, we recommend you read this. Chapter 5 of Behavioral Insights, which was co authored by Michael Hallsworth (along with Elspeth Kirkman) also gives an overview of the issues discussed.  Thanks to the large team of people who were involved in the project, especially Janice Wilson, Catherine Gerard, Richard Hamblin, Carl Shuker, Janet Mackay, Rawiri McKree Jansen, Richard Medlicott, Aniva Lawrence, Sally Roberts, Jan White and Leanne Te Karu.  Music by Rich O'Brien https://open.spotify.com/playlist/1m3zn3SHmMh3vuR13hkLCP?si=e9e2193372664b6b Production by Alex Gyani.  Editing by Pixelife Studios. 

In this episode I talk about the replication crisis in science and the impact it has on our lives.

Replicability is the hallmark of science. Science values replication so much that as long a study is sufficiently replicated, the claims it makes are considered valid even if they conflict with accepted theories. We trust scientific findings because experiments repeated under the same conditions produce the same results. Or do they?   https://www.insightfulthinkersmedia.com/   References:    Bausell, R. B. (2021). The problem with science the reproducibility crisis and what to do about it. Oxford University Press.   Fidler, Fiona and John Wilcox, "Reproducibility of Scientific Results", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).   Romero, F. (2019). Philosophy of Science and The Replicability Crisis.

Episode 45 of our book read/podcast covering open-source textbooks and other topics to act as a free supplement topics on psychology. We move into a Flex/Summer discussion on a number of topics as we gear up for Season 3: Cognitive Psychology. In this episode we discuss the “replication crisis”. What is it, what causes it, what is the real issues influencing this “crisis”. All that and more on the publication process and research in psychology. PSD Website: https://psychosocialdistancingpodcast.com/ Thomas' Webpage: https://sexography.org/ Thomas' Twitter: https://twitter.com/TBrooks_SexPsy Daniel's Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScienceInChaos Journal in Support of the Null Hypothesis: https://www.jasnh.com/ Bias of the Week: Attentional Bias https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h3r_CNg_MuRKbi_oJYVRth7dAMW2nNiS/view?usp=sharing

In the last decade, a controversy called the 'replication crisis' rocked the scientific community. The crisis centered around the fact that many scientific studies were difficult or even impossible to reproduce. At the heart of the issue is statistical significance. In this episode, we explore the crisis, the questions around significance, and the possible solutions that are being considered. The Random Sample is a podcast by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Mathematical and Statistical Frontiers. In this show, we share stories about mathematics, statistics and the people involved. To learn more about ACEMS, visit https://acems.org.au.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NOTE: The beginning of this conversation touches on some of the same themes that were discussed in the recent episode with Michael Nielsen. After that, though, this conversation heads off in other directions.Is scientific progress speeding up or slowing down? How can we understand and explain the replication crisis in the social sciences? In the context of research, does speed have a quality all its own in the same way that quantity has a quality all its own? What are Geoff and Spencer doing in the social science field that's significantly different from what others are doing?Geoff Anders is the founder of Leverage Research, a non-profit research institute that studies the history of science to learn how a better understanding of early stage science can inform scientific efforts today. Geoff is also the co-founder of Paradigm, a training and coaching organization that uses knowledge of learning, thinking, and motivation to help people think better and better pursue their missions. Geoff has a PhD in Philosophy from Rutgers University. You can learn more about Geoff via his website and can follow him on Twitter at @geoffanders.

NOTE: The beginning of this conversation touches on some of the same themes that were discussed in the recent episode with Michael Nielsen. After that, though, this conversation heads off in other directions.Is scientific progress speeding up or slowing down? How can we understand and explain the replication crisis in the social sciences? In the context of research, does speed have a quality all its own in the same way that quantity has a quality all its own? What are Geoff and Spencer doing in the social science field that's significantly different from what others are doing?Geoff Anders is the founder of Leverage Research, a non-profit research institute that studies the history of science to learn how a better understanding of early stage science can inform scientific efforts today. Geoff is also the co-founder of Paradigm, a training and coaching organization that uses knowledge of learning, thinking, and motivation to help people think better and better pursue their missions. Geoff has a PhD in Philosophy from Rutgers University. You can learn more about Geoff via his website and can follow him on Twitter at @geoffanders.[Read more]

We put a lot of faith in science but in recent years it has become evident that many findings are unable to be replicated. This has become known as the 'replication crisis' and it has thrown the credibility of some areas of science into question. It hasn't been all bad though as it has helped many scientists to rethink how they conduct research and report their results, improving the veracity of findings.  We explore a few of the reasons behind the replication crisis and discuss the concept of statistical significance. Show notesThe relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of Trivial Pursuit – Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) The replication crisis in psychology – Diener & Biswas-DienerPublication biasScience-mart – Philip MarowskiHow Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data – Daniele FanelliDipak DasFixing the Replication Crisis: The Need to Understand Human Psychology – Dorothy Bishophttps://www.facebook.com/thehereandnowpodcast/ https://twitter.com/herenowpodcast emailthehereandnow@gmail.comSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/thehereandnowpodcast)

Brian Nosek (@BrianNosek) joins Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) and Laura Deming (@laurademing) to open science, the replication crisis, and incentives in scientific research.

We continue our discussion of expert misinformation, focusing on the roles of publishers, the media, and the general public in the process. Do researchers and publishers put too much focus on the novel and the surprising? Does the general public share any of the epistemic blame, or are they put in an impossible epistemic position?Toby Napoletano, Michael Hughes, Hanna Gunn

Say this much for the “reproducibility crisis” in science: It's poorly timed. At the same instant that a significant chunk of elected and appointed policymakers seem to disbelieve the science behind global warming, and a significant chunk of parents seem to disbelieve the science behind vaccines … a bunch of actual scientists come along and point out that vast swaths of the social sciences don't stand up to scrutiny.

A recent study co-led by Wharton's Gideon Nave attempted to replicate social science experiments published in top journals with mixed results. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Daniel Glaser apprehensively revisits an article of his that saw some fallout due to a study he cited. But that study was not the only one involved in what is now being called a crisis for psychology and further afield