Scientific Studies

[saevel25]

 

 

[Elmer]

Saw this last night, brilliant as always!

[Abu3baid]

Awesome.. It's funny because I'm always telling my wife that most of the studies that she tells me about are bullshit most likely paid for by the company or industry that stands to gain the most by what ever statement that is being made.

[DrvFrShow]

lol....

[Buckeyebowman]

OMG! That guy is brilliant! I've never seen him before. Is this a web only product?

I've heard this type of analysis before. Things like, 100% of cancer victims have eaten carrots! Therefore, carrots cause cancer! Overly simplistic, sure! But you get the idea.

It's interesting that in most cases, it was not science's fault. It was "buzz" hungry media coupled with a gullible public. People should be taught to be as skeptical as scientists are!

[boogielicious]

9 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

OMG! That guy is brilliant! I've never seen him before. Is this a web only product?

I've heard this type of analysis before. Things like, 100% of cancer victims have eaten carrots! Therefore, carrots cause cancer! Overly simplistic, sure! But you get the idea.

It's interesting that in most cases, it was not science's fault. It was "buzz" hungry media coupled with a gullible public. People should be taught to be as skeptical as scientists are!

He's on HBO. He was with The Daily Show for many years. 

[saevel25]

12 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

OMG! That guy is brilliant! I've never seen him before. Is this a web only product?

He'll post good 17-24 minute long segment on his youtube channel once a week. 

[natureboy]

Awesome video. Thanks for the post. That's both good information and entertaining.

Can't the morning talk shows and other media afford competent science editors to avoid this tabloidish dumbing down? Don't they have a duty to their viewers?

The lack of funding for confirmation studies is very concerning. I suspect it's more of a problem in the areas of public health and medicine where there's a lot of industry supported research as opposed to say, physics.

[Buckeyebowman]

On 5/15/2016 at 4:12 PM, natureboy said:

Awesome video. Thanks for the post. That's both good information and entertaining.

Can't the morning talk shows and other media afford competent science editors to avoid this tabloidish dumbing down? Don't they have a duty to their viewers?

The lack of funding for confirmation studies is very concerning. I suspect it's more of a problem in the areas of public health and medicine where there's a lot of industry supported research as opposed to say, physics.

Do they have a duty to their viewers? Yes. But they take their duty to their advertisers far more seriously!

As far as "industry supported research" goes, believe me, there is plenty of money coming from both sides. The left is hardly "poor", no matter how much they'd like to play that role!

Makes a great argument for "blind funding" of research, doesn't it?

[natureboy]

17 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Do they have a duty to their viewers? Yes. But they take their duty to their advertisers far more seriously!

Neglect the first and turn people off because you put out unfiltered garbage and you will have fewer valuable eyeballs over time. The interest is ultimately dual. Just like reasonable regulation of Wall Street and Banks. If there is a good level of general trust in the system, people will invest and those firms will have more customers rather than them yanking what capital they have left out of the market and stuffing dough in the mattress.

17 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

As far as "industry supported research" goes, believe me, there is plenty of money coming from both sides. The left is hardly "poor", no matter how much they'd like to play that role!

Who said anything about right and left? Where's this coming from?

I'm sure plenty of self-serving industry research is done by 'left-supporting' scientists whatever that means. I was referring to industry-sponsored vs. gov't or foundation sponsored pure research.

Industry sponsored studies tend to be very narrow in their scope..does our product do something that has a market, or can we discover something to serve a potential market. They are typically less interested in pure research and confirmation studies (especially for any dubious claims their marketers may want to make). That's the negative potential. On the positive potential, investigating questions with potentially large markets could help lots of people.

I think the critics actually do these firms a great service by pointing to potential flaws in their studies that may save them from an expensive recall or destruction of a brand name that's been heavily invested in. IMO they'd be wise to set up an industry pool for pure research with an above influence proposal selection committee.

17 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Makes a great argument for "blind funding" of research, doesn't it?

What do you mean? Like randomly award money for research like a lottery. If that's what you meant, no I don't. But if you mean all the selection committee sees is the proposal and methodology e.g. that may be helpful, but sometimes the qualifications of the team or capacity of the facility proposing the research is relevant to the review. I'm okay with experts on these review committees so long as their goals are for advancement of science.

[Buckeyebowman]

Oh, good Lord! I can't believe that you entered such a completely off the mark reply! I thought you had some smarts.

Valuable eyeballs? There are no such things! There are only eyeballs. Advertising rates are established on "number of impressions", in other words the number of people who see your ad. The only "value" established for those "eyeballs" is what age they are, what demographic they belong to. If you're seeking to market to a particular demographic, you might pay more to place an ad on "this" show rather than "that" show.

And who said anything about "left and right"? You did! You used the phrase "industry supported research", which is a code phrase of the left to indicate research that is suspect! When have you ever heard "Entertainment Industry supported research", or "Actor supported research" in reply! And please don't try to tell me that government sponsored research is as pure as the wind driven snow.

I've just realized that you may be confining your remarks to the field of physics. In that realm, they might be valid. Besides you, me, and a couple of guys behind the tree, who the hell cares? I'm referring more to "agendized" science, like climatology, nutrition, and prescription drugs.

As for blind funding, that doesn't mean throwing money at any bunch of yahoos who cook up some hare brained scheme. All it means is that the people who are doing the research don't know where the money is.coming from. So they don't know who is buttering their bread! Let's face it, scientists are people, and they need to make a living.

There was a line from "The Big Bang Theory" that, while fictional, makes real world sense. In one episode another physicist, Barry Kripke, is asked why he's still studying string theory. He says, "Hey, I study a theory that can't be proven, I apply for grants, and I spend the money on booze and broads!"