4 ms·

We had similar nonsense with r the EM Drive and cold fusion so this isn’t that new. Either way the best video I’ve seen on this whole thing, Abe why it’s endle

We had similar nonsense with r the EM Drive and cold fusion so this isn’t that new. Either way the best video I’ve seen on this whole thing, Abe why it’s endlessly frustrating, is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl-AgmoZ5mo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl-AgmoZ5mo

goku12 3y ago
It's easy call those claims nonsense in retrospect. However, many important discoveries were made from equally fantastic observations. We would have missed a lot if we brushed them aside cynically. The only way to know for sure is to test the claim scientifically. As the LK99 saga has shown, even incredible claims must be discussed and tested in public. This is one episode where the media hype did work - though the result was disappointing. Well! That's the price you pay for progress.
- Eji1700 3y ago
  > It's easy call those claims nonsense in retrospect. People were calling out the over hyping, the bad science, and the bad graph from day 1. The original scientists DIDN'T want to publish. Almost all important discoveries have been made from PROPER science. If you have surprising results, you verify them. You verify your test results. You verify your methodology. You repeat the experiment. How many important discoveries aren't found because they can't get funding/attention because "doing it right" is somehow seen as wrong now.
brutusborn 3y ago
I really like the video but I disagree with his prescription for peer review to increase trust in science. People don’t distrust scientists because there isn’t enough peer review or because of pre-prints failing to replicate, they distrust scientific institutions because scientific institutions often communicate their current best theory as the truth and pretend that they can ‘prove’ things true by way of ‘scientific consensus.’ Going against the consensus can ruin or limit your career. Lots of examples: climate scientists making claims of ice free arctic by 2020, dietary science flip flopping on diet advice (fat and butter is bad, carbs are bad), covid vaccines being a silver bullet, ivermectin not being effective [1]. Add in problems in social ‘sciences’ like the Sokal affair, psychology replication crisis, mainstream economists failing to predict the GFC, definitions of foundational terms like “woman” changing, and you have a recipe for the general public not trusting academia or ‘scientific’ institutions in general. Science and academia in general is being polluted by politics and it is incentivising academics to exaggerate the accuracy of their knowledge. [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790173 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... I added the reference here because Ivermectin was a horrible case of politicising science: mainstream institutions called it an animal medicine with full knowledge it was safe for humans. And now there is a potential mechanism for its effect, it looks like it may have been effective after all. During the pandemic I heard many scientists laugh at people for considering it, all because an authority they trusted told them it was silly.
- tuatoru 3y ago
  Your specific examples are of media wilfully misunderstanding what the science says in order to sensationalise, and get clicks. Get your science from the newspaper, get trash. Ivermectin, for instance, has been on the World Health Organisation's list of essential medicines for a long time. The replication crisis is a real thing, for sure. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO_Model_List_of_Essential_Medicines#Anthelminthics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO_Model_List_of_Essential_Me...
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    I don’t think the media caused the psychology replication crisis. The media plays a part in all this, but the scientific institutions shouldn’t crumble to media or political pressure. See the FDA’s advice on Ivermectin: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul... “Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications,” but fail to mention that there is no evidence that it is not safe for this particular indication. This implies it wasn’t banned for safety reasons. It was banned because many associated it with Trump and right wing conspiracy theories. There was no science used to justify banning it to begin with, and we are now years later, with a potential mechanism for the benefit and it is still banned! One more link to prove I’m not completely insane: the AMA and other mainstream medical bodies recommended not using it for Covid https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-apha-ashp-statement-ending-use-ivermectin-treat-covid-19 https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-aph...
    - tuatoru 3y ago
      Ivermectin is known to be an anthelminthic: it kills worms. That's what it's approved for. It is not known to have antiviral activity, so it's not approved for that use. It is acknowledged to be an official medicine for humans, not just an animal remedy as you claimed. Please keep to the point.
      - brutusborn 3y ago

goku12 3y ago

It's easy call those claims nonsense in retrospect. However, many important discoveries were made from equally fantastic observations. We would have missed a lot if we brushed them aside cynically. The only way to know for sure is to test the claim scientifically. As the LK99 saga has shown, even incredible claims must be discussed and tested in public. This is one episode where the media hype did work - though the result was disappointing. Well! That's the price you pay for progress.

Eji1700 3y ago
> It's easy call those claims nonsense in retrospect. People were calling out the over hyping, the bad science, and the bad graph from day 1. The original scientists DIDN'T want to publish. Almost all important discoveries have been made from PROPER science. If you have surprising results, you verify them. You verify your test results. You verify your methodology. You repeat the experiment. How many important discoveries aren't found because they can't get funding/attention because "doing it right" is somehow seen as wrong now.

brutusborn 3y ago

I really like the video but I disagree with his prescription for peer review to increase trust in science. People don’t distrust scientists because there isn’t enough peer review or because of pre-prints failing to replicate, they distrust scientific institutions because scientific institutions often communicate their current best theory as the truth and pretend that they can ‘prove’ things true by way of ‘scientific consensus.’ Going against the consensus can ruin or limit your career. Lots of examples: climate scientists making claims of ice free arctic by 2020, dietary science flip flopping on diet advice (fat and butter is bad, carbs are bad), covid vaccines being a silver bullet, ivermectin not being effective [1]. Add in problems in social ‘sciences’ like the Sokal affair, psychology replication crisis, mainstream economists failing to predict the GFC, definitions of foundational terms like “woman” changing, and you have a recipe for the general public not trusting academia or ‘scientific’ institutions in general. Science and academia in general is being polluted by politics and it is incentivising academics to exaggerate the accuracy of their knowledge. [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790173 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... I added the reference here because Ivermectin was a horrible case of politicising science: mainstream institutions called it an animal medicine with full knowledge it was safe for humans. And now there is a potential mechanism for its effect, it looks like it may have been effective after all. During the pandemic I heard many scientists laugh at people for considering it, all because an authority they trusted told them it was silly.

tuatoru 3y ago
Your specific examples are of media wilfully misunderstanding what the science says in order to sensationalise, and get clicks. Get your science from the newspaper, get trash. Ivermectin, for instance, has been on the World Health Organisation's list of essential medicines for a long time. The replication crisis is a real thing, for sure. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO_Model_List_of_Essential_Medicines#Anthelminthics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO_Model_List_of_Essential_Me...
- brutusborn 3y ago
  I don’t think the media caused the psychology replication crisis. The media plays a part in all this, but the scientific institutions shouldn’t crumble to media or political pressure. See the FDA’s advice on Ivermectin: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul... “Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications,” but fail to mention that there is no evidence that it is not safe for this particular indication. This implies it wasn’t banned for safety reasons. It was banned because many associated it with Trump and right wing conspiracy theories. There was no science used to justify banning it to begin with, and we are now years later, with a potential mechanism for the benefit and it is still banned! One more link to prove I’m not completely insane: the AMA and other mainstream medical bodies recommended not using it for Covid https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-apha-ashp-statement-ending-use-ivermectin-treat-covid-19 https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-aph...
  - tuatoru 3y ago
    Ivermectin is known to be an anthelminthic: it kills worms. That's what it's approved for. It is not known to have antiviral activity, so it's not approved for that use. It is acknowledged to be an official medicine for humans, not just an animal remedy as you claimed. Please keep to the point.
    - brutusborn 3y ago