About that study on toxic black plastics
video description
Date: 2025-01-11
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
SolaAesir
You are right that this sort of error is a fairly inconsequential issue, something that happens from time to time. You also shouldn't be trusting people without the requisite scientific training. You should probably put more trust in the people who do have the requisite training though, even if your interaction with them is in a science communication context rather than through reading a journal article. The rest of your rant is complete BS though.
Any time you hear that peer review is a fundamental part of how science is done, you should translate that in your head into Brawndo is what plants crave. It's got electrolytes. If you aren't familiar with the history of science publication, the editors of scientific journals used to be highly paid, well respected scientists getting near the end of their careers. That turned out to be too expensive, so the journals made a big advertising campaign to switch out the highly paid, competent people whose names and reputations were on the line for unpaid labor who will try to take a glance at those 5 papers you sent them when they have a couple of spare minutes. Stuff like this is exactly the sort of thing that peer review is supposed to catch most easily and, as you can see, it just doesn't. This isn't even the worst example. Go through papers in quite a few fields and you'll find published studies that wouldn't pass a high school science fair. Several fields are having giant replication crises with foundational work turning out to have been fabricated.
The thing is, we already have a better model and it's what scientists themselves use: arXiv. Scientists have to read papers in their field of study daily anyway, just put comments attached to the papers and you already have a much more powerful system than peer review. We've seen it in action quite a few times with fast moving discoveries/situations. The problem is, no journals make big money for providing zero value under that system, so there's a lot of advertising against it (along with blacklists against scientists who suggest such notions. Just look up Aaron Schwartz if you think that's an idle threat.
reply
You are right that this sort of error is a fairly inconsequential issue, something that happens from time to time. You also shouldn't be trusting people without the requisite scientific training. You should probably put more trust in the people who do have the requisite training though, even if your interaction with them is in a science communication context rather than through reading a journal article. The rest of your rant is complete BS though.
Any time you hear that peer review is a fundamental part of how science is done, you should translate that in your head into Brawndo is what plants crave. It's got electrolytes. If you aren't familiar with the history of science publication, the editors of scientific journals used to be highly paid, well respected scientists getting near the end of their careers. That turned out to be too expensive, so the journals made a big advertising campaign to switch out the highly paid, competent people whose names and reputations were on the line for unpaid labor who will try to take a glance at those 5 papers you sent them when they have a couple of spare minutes. Stuff like this is exactly the sort of thing that peer review is supposed to catch most easily and, as you can see, it just doesn't. This isn't even the worst example. Go through papers in quite a few fields and you'll find published studies that wouldn't pass a high school science fair. Several fields are having giant replication crises with foundational work turning out to have been fabricated.
The thing is, we already have a better model and it's what scientists themselves use: arXiv. Scientists have to read papers in their field of study daily anyway, just put comments attached to the papers and you already have a much more powerful system than peer review. We've seen it in action quite a few times with fast moving discoveries/situations. The problem is, no journals make big money for providing zero value under that system, so there's a lot of advertising against it (along with blacklists against scientists who suggest such notions. Just look up Aaron Schwartz if you think that's an idle threat.
reply
AllelineNguyen
I think you're confused between people who are skeptical of scientific results and people who don't like to be bullied by scientific results. Any scientifically literate person would read scientific results with a healthy dose of skepticism, which is what allows people to spot simple arithmetic errors in the first place. Reading scientific results critically and being skeptical is a normal part of scientific discourse. However, it is becoming increasingly fashionable to use the name of science to bully people, where people will claim that something is true (in the absolutist sense) just because it's published in a scientific paper, and if you don't believe them then you must be on the side of the enemy. I think it's perfectly fine and reasonable that people don't automatically trust the first thing they read in a scientific paper; and in fact, it's also fine to not trust or agree with the scientific consensus, as long as they actually understand what they're disagreeing with. There's nothing magical about the scientific process that makes its conclusion automatically true. Science is still the BEST method we have to reaching toward objective truth, but it is by no means perfect, and people are perfectly legitimate to disagree with it or bet against it at their own risk. Ascribing to a certain scientific view does not make someone more moral or right, but it's simply a difference in how we interpret the data and risks.
reply
I think you're confused between people who are skeptical of scientific results and people who don't like to be bullied by scientific results. Any scientifically literate person would read scientific results with a healthy dose of skepticism, which is what allows people to spot simple arithmetic errors in the first place. Reading scientific results critically and being skeptical is a normal part of scientific discourse. However, it is becoming increasingly fashionable to use the name of science to bully people, where people will claim that something is true (in the absolutist sense) just because it's published in a scientific paper, and if you don't believe them then you must be on the side of the enemy. I think it's perfectly fine and reasonable that people don't automatically trust the first thing they read in a scientific paper; and in fact, it's also fine to not trust or agree with the scientific consensus, as long as they actually understand what they're disagreeing with. There's nothing magical about the scientific process that makes its conclusion automatically true. Science is still the BEST method we have to reaching toward objective truth, but it is by no means perfect, and people are perfectly legitimate to disagree with it or bet against it at their own risk. Ascribing to a certain scientific view does not make someone more moral or right, but it's simply a difference in how we interpret the data and risks.
reply
KatrinaGressett
As a scientist, one of the first things I learned during my education was to be skeptical of new findings. It is part and partial to the scientific process. A significant part of the scientific discourse is literature solely dedicated to refuting or confirming extraordinary findings in prior work. While I think this particular paper raises an important point that plastics impregnated with flame retardants should be regulated to not end up in plastics used for food, I also think that the sensationalism surrounding this paper and the call by the news for everyone to toss their black plastic spatulas is problematic. Much like the Biden administration's call to stop using gas stoves (which thank you for the warning, but no, once you demand this sort of change by individuals, the message will be disregarded and more harm is done to the credibility of the scientific process as people will choose a side and die on that hill no matter the evidence contrary to their point of view.
reply
As a scientist, one of the first things I learned during my education was to be skeptical of new findings. It is part and partial to the scientific process. A significant part of the scientific discourse is literature solely dedicated to refuting or confirming extraordinary findings in prior work. While I think this particular paper raises an important point that plastics impregnated with flame retardants should be regulated to not end up in plastics used for food, I also think that the sensationalism surrounding this paper and the call by the news for everyone to toss their black plastic spatulas is problematic. Much like the Biden administration's call to stop using gas stoves (which thank you for the warning, but no, once you demand this sort of change by individuals, the message will be disregarded and more harm is done to the credibility of the scientific process as people will choose a side and die on that hill no matter the evidence contrary to their point of view.
reply
JCUDOS
Gosh I love your ethics and your brain!
Dennet, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens were the four horsemen of apocalypse.
I'd want you in my quartet of beautiful rhetorics, critical thinking, rationality, respect, creativity and curiosity. much better than apocalypse if you ask me. Haha
I'm also thinking Mike Israetel. Anne-Laure LeCunf would be another fascinating interlocutor. Oh, and Lauren as well! . Maybe more like multiple videos after all. too many interesting people to talk to!
Hey, Harris is actually sponsoring Mike now. Maybe he'd join!
I know, I'm an optimist hahaha. Maybe i should start by achieving a few more things on my side before hoping for so much. '
reply
Gosh I love your ethics and your brain!
Dennet, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens were the four horsemen of apocalypse.
I'd want you in my quartet of beautiful rhetorics, critical thinking, rationality, respect, creativity and curiosity. much better than apocalypse if you ask me. Haha
I'm also thinking Mike Israetel. Anne-Laure LeCunf would be another fascinating interlocutor. Oh, and Lauren as well! . Maybe more like multiple videos after all. too many interesting people to talk to!
Hey, Harris is actually sponsoring Mike now. Maybe he'd join!
I know, I'm an optimist hahaha. Maybe i should start by achieving a few more things on my side before hoping for so much. '
reply
reidferguson4328
Could you do a video comparing and contrasting different scientific and regulatory views within the US and EU. I find that many trash on the US not caring for its people safety especially when it comes to food ingredients as the first target. They always glorify the EU’s system as substantially better (although they have their benefits in their own respects. I would like people to understand that the US is not perfect but they have regulations set in place that aren’t intended to harm anyone. If there is evidence that says otherwise it would definitely be worth bringing out to the light too.
reply
Could you do a video comparing and contrasting different scientific and regulatory views within the US and EU. I find that many trash on the US not caring for its people safety especially when it comes to food ingredients as the first target. They always glorify the EU’s system as substantially better (although they have their benefits in their own respects. I would like people to understand that the US is not perfect but they have regulations set in place that aren’t intended to harm anyone. If there is evidence that says otherwise it would definitely be worth bringing out to the light too.
reply
elisam. r. 9960
You ask What kind of process do you want to trust instead, and I have a suggestion. I would prefer a process that reduces the reach of initial studies and more greatly rewards replication efforts of all sorts. I want replications in any direction to get more press than they do. I want replications to be the basis for public policy decisions. While it's still using the scholarly publication system, it's making the system more collaborative and changes the incentives. It also puts more eyes on the math and methodology. Frankly, I'm surprised this was not proposed as an option in the video.
reply
You ask What kind of process do you want to trust instead, and I have a suggestion. I would prefer a process that reduces the reach of initial studies and more greatly rewards replication efforts of all sorts. I want replications in any direction to get more press than they do. I want replications to be the basis for public policy decisions. While it's still using the scholarly publication system, it's making the system more collaborative and changes the incentives. It also puts more eyes on the math and methodology. Frankly, I'm surprised this was not proposed as an option in the video.
reply
benthomas4544
I know a lot of folks may want to use this video defending the scientific method to defend establishment doctrinaire science, as in if the CDC says it's true, then we should believe it. Government agencies do no adhere to the spirit of what makes science great. They use science as a tool of control. It's not always or even usually to ill intent, but it's still a perversion of the spirit of the process. I'm not anti-vax, and I don't assume the government is populated by lizard people. In fact I'm a lefty in government. Nothing from the establishment should be trusted on the face of it.
reply
I know a lot of folks may want to use this video defending the scientific method to defend establishment doctrinaire science, as in if the CDC says it's true, then we should believe it. Government agencies do no adhere to the spirit of what makes science great. They use science as a tool of control. It's not always or even usually to ill intent, but it's still a perversion of the spirit of the process. I'm not anti-vax, and I don't assume the government is populated by lizard people. In fact I'm a lefty in government. Nothing from the establishment should be trusted on the face of it.
reply
FireStormOOO_
The rubber stamp peer review mostly reflects badly on the specific journal more than the authors, except insofar as the authors should've picked a more legit publication. As you say, mistakes happen, but evidently no one in the peer review could bother to read the paper and check the math to even the standard of a science literate layperson. Part of why science is hard is you need people to reliably chain hundreds of math and analysis steps together correctly for the article to be worth more than the paper it's printed on.
reply
The rubber stamp peer review mostly reflects badly on the specific journal more than the authors, except insofar as the authors should've picked a more legit publication. As you say, mistakes happen, but evidently no one in the peer review could bother to read the paper and check the math to even the standard of a science literate layperson. Part of why science is hard is you need people to reliably chain hundreds of math and analysis steps together correctly for the article to be worth more than the paper it's printed on.
reply
SM-ce1uy
so we have a clear uptick in cancers, auto immune disease and endo plus fertility issues in both men and women, but we need to act like all of these plastic laden products are safe for us, when they've even found microplastics in the placenta and in human milk the journal may be flawed, but microplastics are a thing. I have switched over to wood utensils and they last longer and are less ugly (black utensils are UGLY. teflon pans they don't exist in my house. the less demand the products have, the quicker they can get the hint
reply
so we have a clear uptick in cancers, auto immune disease and endo plus fertility issues in both men and women, but we need to act like all of these plastic laden products are safe for us, when they've even found microplastics in the placenta and in human milk the journal may be flawed, but microplastics are a thing. I have switched over to wood utensils and they last longer and are less ugly (black utensils are UGLY. teflon pans they don't exist in my house. the less demand the products have, the quicker they can get the hint
reply
labmeeting
Uh, this is how peer review and the scientific community works, regardless of if its a popular study or not. Many many many studies are corrected and retracted for so many reasons - and no, most of them are not very loud. Check out retraction watch. A course correction in science is literally evidence of the system working. Unfortunately the public typically see retractions as a black eye on science stemming from a mistaken belief that science is a purveyor of truth, instead of the pursuit of truth as it actually is.
reply
Uh, this is how peer review and the scientific community works, regardless of if its a popular study or not. Many many many studies are corrected and retracted for so many reasons - and no, most of them are not very loud. Check out retraction watch. A course correction in science is literally evidence of the system working. Unfortunately the public typically see retractions as a black eye on science stemming from a mistaken belief that science is a purveyor of truth, instead of the pursuit of truth as it actually is.
reply
aragusea
A bit surprised that error wasn't caught in peer review, especially as it's in the paper body.
Tangentially, I think the scientific publishing process is a bit opaque if you aren't a professional scientist. Not sure how to fix that, but the review process helps root out bad actors and honest mistakes. It's not perfect, but it does mean that if many papers say the same thing, it's probably that thing. Getting one bad paper out is possible, paying off 90% of the literature is very difficult
reply
A bit surprised that error wasn't caught in peer review, especially as it's in the paper body.
Tangentially, I think the scientific publishing process is a bit opaque if you aren't a professional scientist. Not sure how to fix that, but the review process helps root out bad actors and honest mistakes. It's not perfect, but it does mean that if many papers say the same thing, it's probably that thing. Getting one bad paper out is possible, paying off 90% of the literature is very difficult
reply
chrisrelhard
distrusting academic publishing that missed errors which were then found because the study was written in a way that makes the work easy to follow feels like just another form of survivorship bias. there is no 100% foolproof system, things will slip through. what we need to stop is massive changes after only one study. you can be conscious of things and shift your behavior, but don't throw all of your cooking utensils out after one study is released.
reply
distrusting academic publishing that missed errors which were then found because the study was written in a way that makes the work easy to follow feels like just another form of survivorship bias. there is no 100% foolproof system, things will slip through. what we need to stop is massive changes after only one study. you can be conscious of things and shift your behavior, but don't throw all of your cooking utensils out after one study is released.
reply
B. -gb2sh
I really appreciate your candid honesty, I just watched a news segment by CBC News back tracking the study and just the way it was presented got me thinking who's paying to have this study retracted or who's being pressured so I appreciate the explanation on it. That said I'm still trying to avoid all plastic until there's more data available. Remember lead was once a safe and industries actively tried to cover up the fact that it was poison.
reply
I really appreciate your candid honesty, I just watched a news segment by CBC News back tracking the study and just the way it was presented got me thinking who's paying to have this study retracted or who's being pressured so I appreciate the explanation on it. That said I'm still trying to avoid all plastic until there's more data available. Remember lead was once a safe and industries actively tried to cover up the fact that it was poison.
reply
humberto5889
12: 31 a better system would involve actually paying the reviwers, Do you want a job well done Pay for it. Everytime I've been reviewd it's clear the reviewer doesnt actually care, they just suggest a few modifications (someone actually wanted me to cite their work on my paper) and call it a day, just so it would look like they actually reviewd the whole thing. Free peer reviews are just one of the diseases killing current academia.
reply
12: 31 a better system would involve actually paying the reviwers, Do you want a job well done Pay for it. Everytime I've been reviewd it's clear the reviewer doesnt actually care, they just suggest a few modifications (someone actually wanted me to cite their work on my paper) and call it a day, just so it would look like they actually reviewd the whole thing. Free peer reviews are just one of the diseases killing current academia.
reply
jameshinds2510
So just because one author made a mistake doesn't mean you should distrust muhScience. Well, you aren't wrong, but that's not right, either. You should not advocate trust in science, but open minded analytical skepticism. If you are not willing to put some effort in, you should admit you have no opinion, but if you are you should default towards distrust and not towards trust or else science won't get properly prodded forward.
reply
So just because one author made a mistake doesn't mean you should distrust muhScience. Well, you aren't wrong, but that's not right, either. You should not advocate trust in science, but open minded analytical skepticism. If you are not willing to put some effort in, you should admit you have no opinion, but if you are you should default towards distrust and not towards trust or else science won't get properly prodded forward.
reply
ymi_yugy3133
I can't help but feel, like the peer review process lacks incentive for a thorough review. There is pressure to publish as much as possible and reviews are often treated as professional curtesies.
The quality of review does of course vary widely, but I think it's pretty rare that reviewers will spend the days or even weeks it would take to think through each tiny claim, verify each calculation and track down every reference.
reply
I can't help but feel, like the peer review process lacks incentive for a thorough review. There is pressure to publish as much as possible and reviews are often treated as professional curtesies.
The quality of review does of course vary widely, but I think it's pretty rare that reviewers will spend the days or even weeks it would take to think through each tiny claim, verify each calculation and track down every reference.
reply
gi1dor
My main disagreement with video is that tries to tell that current peer review process is not absolutely broken. And it is, it's nearly useless, and we can do better
Pay for peer review for example (and for error catching specifically, do not allow conflict of interest for reviewers (and have a way to ban reviewers/researchers who violated it)
In general whole system is broken, even if it not malicious
reply
My main disagreement with video is that tries to tell that current peer review process is not absolutely broken. And it is, it's nearly useless, and we can do better
Pay for peer review for example (and for error catching specifically, do not allow conflict of interest for reviewers (and have a way to ban reviewers/researchers who violated it)
In general whole system is broken, even if it not malicious
reply
aegis645
Correction to your correction: the highest possible dose without any risk and the lowest possible dose without any risk would actually refer to the same quantity, so though you didn't use the exact terminology from the paper, you were technically correct in the first video. It's such a minor thing, but it just goes to further prove what was said about the standards applied to influencers versus scientists.
reply
Correction to your correction: the highest possible dose without any risk and the lowest possible dose without any risk would actually refer to the same quantity, so though you didn't use the exact terminology from the paper, you were technically correct in the first video. It's such a minor thing, but it just goes to further prove what was said about the standards applied to influencers versus scientists.
reply
99zanne
In the end, there are always mistakes. ALL ppl are human, and that automatically makes mistakes! I think that lots of ppl hunt for conspiracies, and refuse to admit that accidents happen and happen randomly. I think the good news is that there are so MANY possible mistakes to make, that most of us only make each individual mistake ONCE. Maybe that adds up to progress. TFS.
reply
In the end, there are always mistakes. ALL ppl are human, and that automatically makes mistakes! I think that lots of ppl hunt for conspiracies, and refuse to admit that accidents happen and happen randomly. I think the good news is that there are so MANY possible mistakes to make, that most of us only make each individual mistake ONCE. Maybe that adds up to progress. TFS.
reply
jomercerlmt5727
My job used to invovled working with retiree volunteers, most of whom had had careers in chemistry, medicine, etc. They really kept me on my feet by thoroughly examining anything I wrote or said and alerting me to mistakes of all kinds.
There's hardly any truly peer-reviewed journals left. They've mostly gone to pay to play.
reply
My job used to invovled working with retiree volunteers, most of whom had had careers in chemistry, medicine, etc. They really kept me on my feet by thoroughly examining anything I wrote or said and alerting me to mistakes of all kinds.
There's hardly any truly peer-reviewed journals left. They've mostly gone to pay to play.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
