If even an author can’t replicate it, shouldn’t that make the results meaningless?

A bunch of women going on about giving mice air-conditioning or not?

Probably. We've filled science with Imposters. It seems predominantly women, they are the largest change in science.

The worst non-replicable sciences are also female majority.

Busywork on mice conditions is exactly the false science we are talking about. More excuse why it's not reproducible when mice are mice and are great sub-ins for humans.

"In mice" is the meme create to excuse the garbage that's produced. The studies never originally worked on mice, but now they have an excuse why they don't work on humans.

I wouldn't necessarily blame it 100% on women though. But I see your point.

Seems like he was correct though. This article doesn’t debunk him, you can’t use official statistics to debunk a claim that the statistics are not computed correctly

> in an effort— well intentioned—to control the coronavirus, we may inflict great damage on ourselves.

And you believe he was wrong and you believe Covid was a "Holocaust-scale outcome" ? He said the rates would be exaggerated and now with the benefit of hindsight, although some would claim common sense after seeing the sensationalism of the media, we can see he was correct. Or do you believe that's not true ?

Yeah that's bad. And https://iai.tv/video/why-most-published-research-findings-ar... appears to do the same thing after 30 minutes. Does anyone have a link to the whole thing?

I don't think this isn't what the reproducibility issue is about.

The problem is there is a broken system in place that rewards publishing in high volumes, only getting positive results, and also doing research that supports those in charge. That doesn't mean new ideas don't win out when clear evidence exists but it is the exception.

All of this leads to economic incentives to lie with the data and then you get to scientific papers that people are making decisions based off (like where to put research dollars for Alzheimers) that are fraudulent. This is not good at all.

The practice of the scientific method is the path to empirical truth. This doesn't necessarily mean that a nominal scientific finding is true. It is likely true that, on a given topic, an acredited scientist in that field has fairly correct opinions, but I would not take this too far. Conflicts of interest, personal biases, incentives to obtain results, simple lack of reproduction, corrupt peer review, etc. are clearly issues, and it's all the more unfortunate that we can't even say just how deep these issues run.

Science is timeless and powerful. Scientists are human beings that nominally, preferably, fallibly practice science.

Gell-Mann amnesia is when you notice that somebody who is writing about something you're an expert in has made critical mistakes, and should not be trusted, but then you go on and trust people writing about topics you don't know as much about, failing to recognize they're probably also making critical mistakes about those other topics. I'm not sure the connection here.

Regarding the comparison between science and folk explanations on the internet, I think it's reasonable to hold science to a higher standard than we hold the general population. If most published research findings are false—as this video claims—and most of what idiots on the internet say is also false, that's neither an equivalence nor a victory for science. On the contrary, it erodes the value of science, both literally and figuratively. Right now we need sources of authority.

My understanding was that Ioannidis hugely underestimated the IFR of COVID and he did it mostly by cherry picking a handful of small-sample-size studies that were friendly to his political views. It was very much a “your heroes will absolutely let you down” moment in my scientific life, and to the extent that non-scientists have forgotten the episode, that’s kind of what I expect.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8843927/amp/Just-0-...

Thanks. This guy (John Ioannidis) is the real deal. You can tell both by the dense, detailed fact sets, presented one after the other in logical order. And hearing the honest, intelligent tone of voice ensures his fidelity.

"The voice never lies." --Blind woman speaking to a friend

And his story about his hearing of Theranos is lowkey hilarious. And topical, because he's a Dunning-Kruger true-expert.

During the early pandemic, he underestimated the rate of fatality from COVID (which, remember, was much higher before vaccines and paxlovid were deployed), and forcefully advocated for policy based on his lower fatality rate estimates. It was a stunning display of hubris: working on very limited information, he was pushing incautious policy responses which could have cost millions of lives.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis