Not all scientific studies are created equal - David H. Schwartz
video description
Date: 2020-08-22
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
steveday72
Interesting video.
I have seen firsthand how studies can be deliberately skewed to project a group's overall bias (ahem. john's hopkins gun-violence and children study. Such ridiculous things are done to achieve their intended facts that I could not believe it. well, actually I could. The bogus researchers, which are often just paid shills, will only utilize precise subsets of the data and ignore large areas that would go against their personal beliefs. Other times they would outright lie, effectively re-label datasets to pad the results (counting police officer justifiable shootings as gun violence; counting air-rifles, BB guns and any other spring-operated toy injuries as firearm injuries, they also double count data or conduct telephone polls in geographic areas they know represent the same political views as them (ahem, MDA, MAIG - Michael Bloomberg organizations.
It really is appalling when people claiming to be acredited researchers present a bogus study to the public, knowing full well that they cherry-picked the data to fit their pre-defined outcome. What's worse is that mainstream media jumps on the bandwagon of fear mongering, without doing any fact checking themselves.
Looking into that one mentioned study for myself one day (about 4 hours of researching their fineprint) has really opened my eyes. Don't believe all you are told just because it claims to be a properly conducted study. Only trust something if you can verify it yourself and definitely do not trust studies that have tiny print at the bottom listing codes that have to be externally referenced from a separate source that you have to find!
reply
Interesting video.
I have seen firsthand how studies can be deliberately skewed to project a group's overall bias (ahem. john's hopkins gun-violence and children study. Such ridiculous things are done to achieve their intended facts that I could not believe it. well, actually I could. The bogus researchers, which are often just paid shills, will only utilize precise subsets of the data and ignore large areas that would go against their personal beliefs. Other times they would outright lie, effectively re-label datasets to pad the results (counting police officer justifiable shootings as gun violence; counting air-rifles, BB guns and any other spring-operated toy injuries as firearm injuries, they also double count data or conduct telephone polls in geographic areas they know represent the same political views as them (ahem, MDA, MAIG - Michael Bloomberg organizations.
It really is appalling when people claiming to be acredited researchers present a bogus study to the public, knowing full well that they cherry-picked the data to fit their pre-defined outcome. What's worse is that mainstream media jumps on the bandwagon of fear mongering, without doing any fact checking themselves.
Looking into that one mentioned study for myself one day (about 4 hours of researching their fineprint) has really opened my eyes. Don't believe all you are told just because it claims to be a properly conducted study. Only trust something if you can verify it yourself and definitely do not trust studies that have tiny print at the bottom listing codes that have to be externally referenced from a separate source that you have to find!
reply
steveday72
Interesting video.
I have seen firsthand how studies can be deliberately skewed to project a group's overall bias (ahem. john's hopkins gun-violence and children study. Such ridiculous things are done to achieve their intended facts that I could not believe it. well, actually I could. The bogus researchers, which are often just paid shills, will only utilize precise subsets of the data and ignore large areas that would go against their personal beliefs. Other times they would outright lie, effectively re-label datasets to pad the results (counting police officer justifiable shootings as gun violence; counting air-rifles, BB guns and any other spring-operated toy injuries as firearm injuries, they also double count data or conduct telephone polls in geographic areas they know represent the same political views as them (ahem, MDA, MAIG - Michael Bloomberg organizations.
It really is appalling when people claiming to be acredited researchers present a bogus study to the public, knowing full well that they cherry-picked the data to fit their pre-defined outcome. What's worse is that mainstream media jumps on the bandwagon of fear mongering, without doing any fact checking themselves.
Looking into that one mentioned study for myself one day (about 4 hours of researching their fineprint) has really opened my eyes. Don't believe all you are told just because it claims to be a properly conducted study. Only trust something if you can verify it yourself and definitely do not trust studies that have tiny print at the bottom listing codes that have to be externally referenced from a separate source that you have to find!
reply
Interesting video.
I have seen firsthand how studies can be deliberately skewed to project a group's overall bias (ahem. john's hopkins gun-violence and children study. Such ridiculous things are done to achieve their intended facts that I could not believe it. well, actually I could. The bogus researchers, which are often just paid shills, will only utilize precise subsets of the data and ignore large areas that would go against their personal beliefs. Other times they would outright lie, effectively re-label datasets to pad the results (counting police officer justifiable shootings as gun violence; counting air-rifles, BB guns and any other spring-operated toy injuries as firearm injuries, they also double count data or conduct telephone polls in geographic areas they know represent the same political views as them (ahem, MDA, MAIG - Michael Bloomberg organizations.
It really is appalling when people claiming to be acredited researchers present a bogus study to the public, knowing full well that they cherry-picked the data to fit their pre-defined outcome. What's worse is that mainstream media jumps on the bandwagon of fear mongering, without doing any fact checking themselves.
Looking into that one mentioned study for myself one day (about 4 hours of researching their fineprint) has really opened my eyes. Don't believe all you are told just because it claims to be a properly conducted study. Only trust something if you can verify it yourself and definitely do not trust studies that have tiny print at the bottom listing codes that have to be externally referenced from a separate source that you have to find!
reply
GZXC993
Unfortunately, looking into studies is a lot easier said than done. I've tried reading actual studies to see how they came to their results, and most I came across are published in scientific journals that require you to pay money to see the contents. Most allow you to see the abstract, but not the actual contents of how the study was conducted. Additionally, even if the studies were publicly available, the studies are structured to support the conclusion in the abstract; such as only using selective data, as mentioned in the video. This makes it very difficult to discern the validity of the test because you can only see the test in the framework that the author intended.
reply
Unfortunately, looking into studies is a lot easier said than done. I've tried reading actual studies to see how they came to their results, and most I came across are published in scientific journals that require you to pay money to see the contents. Most allow you to see the abstract, but not the actual contents of how the study was conducted. Additionally, even if the studies were publicly available, the studies are structured to support the conclusion in the abstract; such as only using selective data, as mentioned in the video. This makes it very difficult to discern the validity of the test because you can only see the test in the framework that the author intended.
reply
Sylvia
Great video. I just want to point out that these tricks to identify clickbait titles are useful when you have a lot of time to spend for that particular study, because you have to find and read the original article, and probably you wont understand much of it if you arent a doctor, so you need to find other sources or contact the authors of the article. All I want to say is. I understand that critical thinking is important, but cant we have journalists to do this? Because I thought that was their job.
reply
Great video. I just want to point out that these tricks to identify clickbait titles are useful when you have a lot of time to spend for that particular study, because you have to find and read the original article, and probably you wont understand much of it if you arent a doctor, so you need to find other sources or contact the authors of the article. All I want to say is. I understand that critical thinking is important, but cant we have journalists to do this? Because I thought that was their job.
reply
Ankita
A brilliant video. Many of us need to learn the importance of questioning each thing that comes our way instead of falling for something blindly. This is such an easy way of breaking down the belief that every heading or an advertisement saying ' Scientifically Proven' is the best thing available on the market. Great work!
reply
A brilliant video. Many of us need to learn the importance of questioning each thing that comes our way instead of falling for something blindly. This is such an easy way of breaking down the belief that every heading or an advertisement saying ' Scientifically Proven' is the best thing available on the market. Great work!
reply
MsRScienceClassK12
BLINDED? The way you represent blinded visually without explaining it is a major flaw. As a science educator, I would hope that you could fix this error and repost. Many who are ELL may take this literally and have a negative view of such studies.
reply
BLINDED? The way you represent blinded visually without explaining it is a major flaw. As a science educator, I would hope that you could fix this error and repost. Many who are ELL may take this literally and have a negative view of such studies.
reply
Chillin
you should do a vid on the history of cigarettes, from when/why they were first made threw the crazy revenues they provided to their gradual decline and what kind of studies were used to discover their health risks!
reply
you should do a vid on the history of cigarettes, from when/why they were first made threw the crazy revenues they provided to their gradual decline and what kind of studies were used to discover their health risks!
reply
Lucas
Remember the fat scare? Every product was made light, reducing fat but increasing sugar instead. That was a move by the sugar industry to sell more sugar. You have them to blame for diabetes. Think critically people.
reply
Remember the fat scare? Every product was made light, reducing fat but increasing sugar instead. That was a move by the sugar industry to sell more sugar. You have them to blame for diabetes. Think critically people.
reply
brod2man
So they don't want to bring things into the market before they have been tested for possibly harmful side-effects.
Well, I'm glad someones looking after us.
Time for a cigarette break
reply
So they don't want to bring things into the market before they have been tested for possibly harmful side-effects.
Well, I'm glad someones looking after us.
Time for a cigarette break
reply
zarkoff45
I'm waiting to hear more about the study that showed that blood from young mice reversed aging in old mice, rejuvenating their muscles and brains. Are there human trials on this yet?
reply
I'm waiting to hear more about the study that showed that blood from young mice reversed aging in old mice, rejuvenating their muscles and brains. Are there human trials on this yet?
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
