The link to shownotes with explained citations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r7PQsBTh670mYNzYWHF6JrJD9bJWiUotUuA26jkO3kw/mobilebasic Links to interviews mentioned at the end:...
What’s with the ultra-clickbait title (which is not the title of the video on youtube)? Giraffes are only a vague, sloppy analogy when the video wants to talk about the evolution of ideas and...
What’s with the ultra-clickbait title (which is not the title of the video on youtube)? Giraffes are only a vague, sloppy analogy when the video wants to talk about the evolution of ideas and cultural practices. It’s an interesting topic: how could we not be interested in how to improve science? But giraffes have nothing to do with it.
Yeah, it is clickbaity. FWIW, the part up until the column was the original title of the video, but it has changed since I posted it (or maybe while the tab was sitting in my browser), and I...
Yeah, it is clickbaity. FWIW, the part up until the column was the original title of the video, but it has changed since I posted it (or maybe while the tab was sitting in my browser), and I appended the rest to make it a bit more clear. I'm fine if someone updates the title.
The analogy is more about evolution, and the part in video where the Smaldino footage starts makes it clear: evolution as a process is generic, it works in any context when certain properties (variation, heritability, non-random selection) are present, and science does possess these properties. The status quo incentivised (and still does incentivise) science to publish more, replicate less, and game the system, and science evolved to suffer from this crisis. The selection criteria needs to be modified to incentivise more rigorous and honest studies; reproduction and retraction needs to become more widespread and visible, which again requires incentivisation and funding (because an half-hungry overworked service worker that failed to become a part of this system can't publish studies, replication or otherwise) and modificaition of "selection" criteria.
Interesting topic! (Horrible title.) The fools gold analogy in the video is a bit off because publishing isn't anonymous, scientists have their actual name attached to their work in the journal....
Interesting topic! (Horrible title.) The fools gold analogy in the video is a bit off because publishing isn't anonymous, scientists have their actual name attached to their work in the journal. So while publishing a lot of junk papers may look good in the short term, it could ruin their reputation.
I will add that it seems to me that 90% of anything popular is actually garbage. This goes for science, music, games, etc. Also, there is a plenty of unpopular/unknown stuff that is amazing. I've always just accepted that as a fact of the way the world works.
The link to shownotes with explained citations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r7PQsBTh670mYNzYWHF6JrJD9bJWiUotUuA26jkO3kw/mobilebasic
Links to interviews mentioned at the end: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2txmHj_o8s&feature=youtu.be and https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6DYXiNRgjQ4
What’s with the ultra-clickbait title (which is not the title of the video on youtube)? Giraffes are only a vague, sloppy analogy when the video wants to talk about the evolution of ideas and cultural practices. It’s an interesting topic: how could we not be interested in how to improve science? But giraffes have nothing to do with it.
Yeah, it is clickbaity. FWIW, the part up until the column was the original title of the video, but it has changed since I posted it (or maybe while the tab was sitting in my browser), and I appended the rest to make it a bit more clear. I'm fine if someone updates the title.
The analogy is more about evolution, and the part in video where the Smaldino footage starts makes it clear: evolution as a process is generic, it works in any context when certain properties (variation, heritability, non-random selection) are present, and science does possess these properties. The status quo incentivised (and still does incentivise) science to publish more, replicate less, and game the system, and science evolved to suffer from this crisis. The selection criteria needs to be modified to incentivise more rigorous and honest studies; reproduction and retraction needs to become more widespread and visible, which again requires incentivisation and funding (because an half-hungry overworked service worker that failed to become a part of this system can't publish studies, replication or otherwise) and modificaition of "selection" criteria.
Interesting topic! (Horrible title.) The fools gold analogy in the video is a bit off because publishing isn't anonymous, scientists have their actual name attached to their work in the journal. So while publishing a lot of junk papers may look good in the short term, it could ruin their reputation.
I will add that it seems to me that 90% of anything popular is actually garbage. This goes for science, music, games, etc. Also, there is a plenty of unpopular/unknown stuff that is amazing. I've always just accepted that as a fact of the way the world works.