4 ms·

I understand the complaints, but I don't think the Freakonomics podcast should necessarily be expected to meet the high standard of peer review. Is it really th

I understand the complaints, but I don't think the Freakonomics podcast should necessarily be expected to meet the high standard of peer review. Is it really that bad for Levitt to take published research at face value, trusting that gatekeepers upriver have done their due diligence?

chickenpotpie 2y ago
What is the value in listening to an educational podcast if I cannot be certain that the material is factual?
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Certainty is too high of a bar.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  What use is the value of reading a journal if I cannot be certain that the material is reliably peer reviewed? I'm not sure why the podcast author is being held to a standard that should be levied to other matter experts, that come way before he ever reaches out for an interview.
  - mbowcut2 2y ago
    This is my main point. Seems like gripes about the quality of published research should be directed toward the publisher.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  It is factual that Langer performed a study in which X was done, Y was measured and Z was concluded. What is less clear is whether X was good experimental design, whether the measurements of Y were appropriate, relevant and correct, and thus whether or not Z can be concluded.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
> Is it really that bad for Levitt to take published research at face value, trusting that gatekeepers upriver have done their due diligence? Yes, it is. There is a reason the reproducibility/replication crisis, especially in the social sciences, is such a hot topic. The podcast doesn't need to "meet the high standard of peer review", but there are plenty of published objections and discussions about Langer's unexpected results, and Levitt should have reviewed that and brought that up before essentially saying "Wow, your results are so unexpected! OK I'm pretty sold!"
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >there are plenty of published objections and discussions about Langer's unexpected results, and Levitt should have reviewed that and brought that up Is that expected of Freakonomics? I don't know how much rigor they do with their interview subjects, nor how much of a subect matter expert they are when it comes to pushing back.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    > Is that expected of Freakonomics? Umm, of course? Shouldn't that be expected of any interviewer? I mean, they invited a guest onto their show specifically because they keep coming up with unexpected results - shouldn't they have done at least a little bit of their homework to see why a gaggle of people are condemning their results as non-reproducible?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > Shouldn't that be expected of any interviewer? No? Imagine how ridiculous that would become if interviewers actually followed that logic. "Great gameplay out there, <insert professional sports star>, but nevermind the sport we are all watching, my research identified that you erroneously wrote 1+1=3 in Kindergarten. What was your thought process?" The podcast in question is known as "People I (Mostly) Admire" from the Freakonomics podcast network. The name should tell you that it is going to be about the people, not diving deep into their work. Perhaps there is room for a Podcast that scrutinizes the work of scientists, but one that literally tells you right in its name that it is going to be about people is probably not it.
JohnBooty 2y ago
There's a lot of ground between "the high standard of peer review" and "tak[ing] published research at face value." The former is impractical for a lot of formats (ie podcasts) but the latter is clearly harmful in the context of a popular podcast or some other medium that amplifies the dubious message.
kelipso 2y ago
There is a lot of space left till the high standards of peer review. Some would call what they are doing spreading misinformation lol.

chickenpotpie 2y ago

What is the value in listening to an educational podcast if I cannot be certain that the material is factual?

Dylan16807 2y ago
Certainty is too high of a bar.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
What use is the value of reading a journal if I cannot be certain that the material is reliably peer reviewed? I'm not sure why the podcast author is being held to a standard that should be levied to other matter experts, that come way before he ever reaches out for an interview.
- mbowcut2 2y ago
  This is my main point. Seems like gripes about the quality of published research should be directed toward the publisher.
PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
It is factual that Langer performed a study in which X was done, Y was measured and Z was concluded. What is less clear is whether X was good experimental design, whether the measurements of Y were appropriate, relevant and correct, and thus whether or not Z can be concluded.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

> Is it really that bad for Levitt to take published research at face value, trusting that gatekeepers upriver have done their due diligence? Yes, it is. There is a reason the reproducibility/replication crisis, especially in the social sciences, is such a hot topic. The podcast doesn't need to "meet the high standard of peer review", but there are plenty of published objections and discussions about Langer's unexpected results, and Levitt should have reviewed that and brought that up before essentially saying "Wow, your results are so unexpected! OK I'm pretty sold!"

johnnyanmac 2y ago
>there are plenty of published objections and discussions about Langer's unexpected results, and Levitt should have reviewed that and brought that up Is that expected of Freakonomics? I don't know how much rigor they do with their interview subjects, nor how much of a subect matter expert they are when it comes to pushing back.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  > Is that expected of Freakonomics? Umm, of course? Shouldn't that be expected of any interviewer? I mean, they invited a guest onto their show specifically because they keep coming up with unexpected results - shouldn't they have done at least a little bit of their homework to see why a gaggle of people are condemning their results as non-reproducible?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > Shouldn't that be expected of any interviewer? No? Imagine how ridiculous that would become if interviewers actually followed that logic. "Great gameplay out there, <insert professional sports star>, but nevermind the sport we are all watching, my research identified that you erroneously wrote 1+1=3 in Kindergarten. What was your thought process?" The podcast in question is known as "People I (Mostly) Admire" from the Freakonomics podcast network. The name should tell you that it is going to be about the people, not diving deep into their work. Perhaps there is room for a Podcast that scrutinizes the work of scientists, but one that literally tells you right in its name that it is going to be about people is probably not it.

JohnBooty 2y ago

There's a lot of ground between "the high standard of peer review" and "tak[ing] published research at face value." The former is impractical for a lot of formats (ie podcasts) but the latter is clearly harmful in the context of a popular podcast or some other medium that amplifies the dubious message.

kelipso 2y ago

There is a lot of space left till the high standards of peer review. Some would call what they are doing spreading misinformation lol.