I also want to add that there have been multiple studies about the effects of a Mediterranean diet (includes a lot of wine) on Alzheimer's prevention. The people in this region of the world have a far less dementia rate in older adults.
And no thx, if news actually would pick on actual viable studies, they'd probably present them in such a retarded way that the people do not trust the studies anyways (which is already the case). Mass media basically just uses the abstract of the studies to make up their bs articles
My college Psychology Professor keeps sending us to watch Last Week Tonight videos as part of the course so technically John Oliver is helping me get a bachelor's degree.
“You can’t presume 20 women speak for all women. This is science, not the United States Senate” “In science, you don’t just get to cherry-pick the parts that justify what you were going to do anyway. That’s religion, you’re thinking of religion” Every episode of this show is good, but this episode just really nailed it
Thats hilarious because during covid John Oliver and all the MSM did exactly that. They cherry-picked what they wanted to push their narrative. All of MSM acted like religious zealots along with most on the left. They literally said follow the science as they ignored the actual science. They do the same thing with genders.
Tonight on the news. A new study shows that eating two-thirds of a baby does not help improve child birth. What's shocking is what else scientists have discovered. More at 10.
a correlation has yet to be researched but another recent study shows that pulling your heart out increases the risks of dying from blood loss by almost 100%.
As STEM major. I find this very interesting as nobody ever has talked about this. I always find myself calling ballshit on every time i hear a reporter saying " a study found this...". I think the reason for this is that people are not educated about science of statistics which depict and explain everything Oliver just talked about.
+dany manchster The idea that "nobody has ever talked about shit" is what is ballshit. I do like the (un)subtle "Well I'm a scientist so my opinion is automatically qualified" backpat though.
“There is no Nobel prize for fact checking.” Well seeing that we’re living in a time of false information there really should be a Nobel prize for that.
Perhaps there should be a prize for that - but in journalism, not in the science Nobel Prize. After all, scientific fact-checking (and scientific journalism) leans (IMO) more towards journalism than towards science degrees. 🙂
Why would RUclips possibly age restrict this video? This would be a massively helpful video for young students in helping to navigate the modern age of misinformation.
@@destroyerblackdragon Of course, you can't have kids hear the word "fuck" so let's have them watch videos of Elsa giving the Hulk a colonoscopy that's more suitable 🤡
*looks at the bowl of tomatos I picked from my garden that I'm currently eating* Damn. I thought I was an atheist, but my belief was based in science, and apparantly science says I'm a Jew.
@@Pro_Butcher_Amateur_Human if a cow has 4 legs, it definitely means that every animal with 4 legs is a cow. definitely. and btw, being a jew is determined by birth, not religious belief. I, for example, am a jewish atheist
What's needed is something like an Internal Affairs department for scientific studies... The Department of Studying Studies! It's one of those "Who watches the watchmen?" situations right now; studies can be made to order, manipulated, cherry-picked or buried, all to convey what a company or individual wants them to. This is not science, it is *blasphemy!* Science is about the truth, not convenient lies... Mumble, grumble.
I am going to make the best science. Everyone will see that I make the best science. It will be better than it has ever been. It will be great. I really do the best science. They all say I do the best science.
Media has always been garbage for scientific reporting. People need to learn to pick up actual peer reviewed scientific journals, such as PubMED, JCR, CHI, NCBI, JSTOR, et. al.
@@Overfiend19761 even articles published in prestigious journals is possibly 40% well-masqueraded bullshit. Because, as John Oliver mentioned, rarely anyone is interested in replicating someone else's results. So around 40% of all the published studies in the PRESTIGIOUS scientific journals have never been checked by anyone. Yes, the articles were reviewed for obvious mistakes, but the results weren't replicated for around 40% of the research. Which doesn't stop the media or other scientists to quote those "results". And that's not all... but this comment is too long already.
@@cinegraphics cinegraphics Did you even know GMO is? GMO means Genetic Modified Organism, it's basically refer to strain of plant and animal that had its genetic modified to produce certain result, not fucking sprayed by a poison under the name of roundup
@@cinegraphics shhhhhhhh!!!! Shush your typing fingers :P ! They are sending tons of GMO to poor African and Asian countries as aid. It is the right thing to do ;)
As an MIT Chemistry grad student who does biomedical research, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR DOING THIS, JOHN OLIVER! I am constantly inundated with articles on my Facebook wall and in my inbox with badly written media articles about studies that may or may not conclude anything newsworthy. People often ask for my opinion on these articles and I'm not comfortable giving it until I have found and read the original paper and other papers in that area. Then the few times I have time to do that nobody listens to my more nuanced professional opinion.
No one ever looks for the original report...even tho all schools ask where is your sources and that isnt a real source ie dictionary.com... few persons online who has a clue
Even worse is that most of those articles say something like "a study, done by people, in a country, some time ago" without actually bothering to cite it properly, or at least in a way that would allow the readers to find it
Kardan My degree didn't count a citation if it wasn't full Harvard. During spot checks, if they cannot find it, it didn't count. So we had to make sure to take screen shots of all articles found online in case they didn't have permeant links or were taken down.
@@bakarenibsheut12 Dictionary result for joke /dʒəʊk/ noun noun: joke; plural noun: jokes 1. a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline. "she was in a mood to tell jokes" synonyms: funny story, jest, witticism, quip, pleasantry
Guy Rutledge and another study performed on 14 humale Xhosa martians born between 1548 - 1539 show that people tend to walk slower if they have lost a leg and that there's a correlation between an immense pain spike and getting shot in the foot.
Actually I read a study that says birthdays are bad for you. The more you have, the sooner you'll die. Each birthday takes away 1 year from your life :D
I am disabled with (4) chronic illnesses, and with little to no research being done on prevention or cures for them, I read all the relevant studies published that I can. But I often I can't access them because of the paywalls. There is a huge need for regular people to access these articles and papers. Often, it is the people suffering with disabling chronic illnesses that bring relevant studies to our doctors attention in hope of trying new treatment. We need to be able to access them!!
I know it’s 3 years later but in case you or anyone in a similar situation happen to see this- please email the scientists!! You are completely right about the need for open access research, and as a scientist I hope to play a part in changing that culture and improving access. In the short term, though- I strongly encourage anyone who wants to read a paper to send the author an email requesting it. Scientists want people to read and benefit from and share their work. We don’t get any profit from the journal charging a fee (in fact we had to pay the journal to publish it in the first place). I’ve never met a researcher who wouldn’t happily share their work upon request, and be excited that someone is interested in it. There should be a corresponding author’s email listed on any article. It’s an annoying extra step that shouldn’t be necessary, but I hope this helps anyone facing a paywall on research that affects their health.
The writers at Buzzfeed are all wondering how they are going to have to change what they are doing... Oh wait... They arent. '39 Reasons Owning a Ferret Will Make You More Fertile' is still going online tomorrow morning.
This is actually an entire new career field. Science Communication. Most folks are getting hired at science magazines or at universities to help communicate science to the public, but instead of PR degrees most folks are coming from a science background so they can vet better.
This one scientist actually purposefully made a “study” that eating chocolate every day is healthy. He knew it was false, but he published it, and every talk show talked about it, and everybody was talking about it. Now this was actually an underlying study that he was conducting to see how people reacted to false info that sounds nice.
I, too, adore John Oliver. Takes complex ideas and explains them with insight and humor. Question, though. I'm 57, my sons tell me I'm twice the age of the average audience member (yet they themselves don't watch). True?
I feel like the root of the problem is how so many scientists and educating needs to pump out these studies in order to stay where they are. It would be far better to fix that than the way the studies are covered, since dealing with the foundation of the issues is often the best way to deal with a problem. Plus science should be about quality not quantity, because 100 poorly performed studies will not compare to 1 or 2 properly set up and performed studies.
+John J No, the issue is really how they are reported. The lack of replication studies that John mentioned is also a problem, but scientists know about that and can deal with it. And let's face it, even if more of those studies existed, the media has already done the damage by reporting poorly on the preliminary stuff. The criticism of university press releases is valid though, they often don't help the situation. There are certainly issues with the "publish or perish" system and I agree it needs to be improved, and if studies were better funded and therefore could be bigger etc then yes it would help the conclusions to be more robust and less follow up would be needed, but the bigger problem here is the reporting to the public. As long as that is bad then it doesn't matter how good the underlying science is, the public will still be wildly misled.
+John J How about our government stops cutting research funding every year......so scientists aren't desperate to pump up studies to get scraps of money
Some of the reason studies are poor in quality is due to their use of expensive equipment. so they can have only a couple batches to study. some of these studies also act as a do more research here guide for when costs have come down
+ninjafruitchilled what do you think the solution is? Could there be some sort of litigation caveat for reporting on scientific studies? Let's say, if a scientist finds his work misrepresented in the media can he sue?
"If and when Henry Kissinger dies." The operative word there is IF, which I doubt is very likely, what with the doctor being a powerful necromancer and all.
It's a reference to an Austin Grossman book called "Crooked", where Henry Kissinger is a thousand year old necromancer and Richard Nixon is a wizard. No, seriously.
That was a wine bar not a gym. Those two are easily confused according to 8 'experts'(guys hanging around a gym who were bought cheap wine to participate in a study)
Yup. I'm a researcher and most science is actually extremely narrow, doesn't change the world, and can be very boring. So to get kids interested in STEM and stay-at-home moms to gossip, media outlets water down and distort results of scientific studies.
Scientist here. We really need more science education so that we can better address the problems that exist in science! I appreciate that John Oliver shines a light on the very real problems science is facing. However, I am concerned that many people will walk away from this segment thinking "no science can be trusted". It is just not true that all studies overclaim the significance of their findings, or base their results on miniscule samples, or engage in p-hacking. My discipline (Psychology) is working towards finding ways to ensure higher quality research, such as making scientists pre-register their hypotheses and study design before running an experiment. Open science can also include sharing your analysis script and data, so that other people can fact-check your work or have an easier time trying to replicate your findings. What you should take away from this segment is "Don't rely on media descriptions of research". If you have access, you should try having a look at the original publications (obviously, it could sometimes be hard to understand them without training - as a psychologist, I could not readily understand a physics paper etc.). Also, there is a continued search for more reliable methods and statistical approaches, such as changing our threshold at which findings become "statistically significant" etc. Most of us scientists strive to produce reliable, valuable research. Give science a chance!
We need a PolitiFact for scientific research. "Baby powder good for health when eaten" This study has been found to be FRAUDULENT. "Chocolate can be okay for diarrhea patients" This study has been found to be MOSTLY RELIABLE but NOT INDICATIVE of a greater trend. "Squirrels communicate telepathically" This study has been found to be CORRECT and of GREAT SIGNIFICANCE. Scientifically literate journalists breaking down published findings into handy bits, rating their validity and summarizing the contents in short notes. That would be dope. Like a TL;DR at the end of a study.
Also, maybe introduce a rule that the results of a study can only be published if they've been replicated by two other independent experiments. That way, you don't get the situation where one study's spectacular findings create a media hype, and the findings of any follow-up studies (that may disprove or nuance the findings of the first study) not getting picked up by the media at all, leaving large amounts of people having incorrect or false beliefs.
25% of this segment was devoted specifically to explaining that a significant amount of science is extremely trustworthy, and that by saying 'a study shows' we are unintentionally destroying people's understanding of science, discrediting as something that can be trusted in and that has real weight behind it, so we need to hold our reporting to higher standards. If you missed that part, you didn't watch the whole thing.
14:50 "In science you don't just get to cherry pick the parts that justify what you were going to do anyway, that's religion, you're thinking of religion." Give John Oliver a medal for that sentence.
As a real scientist, I am actually pleasantly surprised that such a widely-recognized individual managed to described the scientific process with such high accuracy.
John needs to do a segment on actual TED Talks, and how much mumbo-jumbo gets put out in them. And maybe explore why Steve Jobs' sales pitch style came to be the accepted presentation style for research findings.
I've got a google chrome extension that changes "recent study" to "surprisingly well-researched tumblr post" and it's making this comment section a lot more entertaining
+randomgirlxrulz I'm currently working on my bachelor thesis in chemistry and this segment encapsulates pretty much everything my superiors are complaining about. It's accurate on an international level.
The concept of Todd talks, and the fact that they're so close to what you see in pop sci articles hurts my soul. Science is irreplacable, and not something that is meant to be easily digestible and forgettable. It defines eras, it revolutionizes the human condition and it makes our very way of life possible, all because of passionate, intelligent people doing hard work every day that get no recognition. I'm ashamed of the very existence of pop sci every single day, and moreso that they're sometimes necessary just for science to get its damn funding.
"If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless. Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." -James 1:26-27
Certainly worth saying that if hard science studies can be fudged by rearranging data variables, imagine the truth bending that can be done in social sciences. Where questionaires can be skewed, data interpreted instead of reported, and where interviews biased with emotion, can become study findings.
+Fonzie Gonz yes it is and the OP doesn't understand what he is talking about. They are held to the same standard as the hard sciences. If that is what you got out of this video you missed the point entirely.
Statistics is all about skewing data and making it sound mathmatical. Confidence intervals, margin of error. terms which are chosen by the scientist and can drastically effect the conclusion of data
John Oliver talking about cocaine sniffing rats applauded by scientists. Next up: Can too much applause kill you? Scientists say: "... uh what..." More after the break.
Me, too brah... I mean, who's honestly going to read my studies on internal waves in the Puget Sound region via close-proximity station anomalies when the ultimate conclusion is: internal waves are important and evidence supports that there may be internal waves in Puget Sound, however we don't know a lot about them and this is why we need to study even more :/ feels bad. No funding.
For Oceanography, it does produce something tangible, and it's not useless. Keeping an eye on internal waves allows data to be compared, the more data we collect on internal waves, the more we can use that data to compare to other internal waves in other regions. Oceanography is sort of a weird field, we publish papers even if it doesn't produce anything extremely tangible, and we make sure to go back and do follow-up studies on old research to validate others' research. Someone has already explored internal waves in Puget Sound, I was going back and both validating that internal waves exist in Puget Sound, and also searching for internal waves in other regions. The reason I have not received any funding is because I am an undergraduate and nobody cares about undergraduates XD
Mildly Amusing Channel hi, yes, so we live this space that most of us like to consider reality. While the average person might be content to rise through reality feeling complacent, scientists tend to be more curious. While I tend to be pulled more towards applied science myself, I realize that *all* of my research is built upon research done by researchers like Monique. Applied science needs a VERY solid foundation of pure science to be even somewhat functional for applied processes. Just a quick glance at internal waves on Google, it sounds like understanding them better would give us another way to quantify how changes in the climate are affecting our oceans via increases in sediment or massive die offs of plankton. And I'm not a climate scientist or a.....o actually dont know what field Monique would be part of. I'm a biologist. If I can Google to figure out the importance of the study, you should have been able to as well, instead of just ragging on someone's passion like some kind of jerk.
Egenio Jaramillo how is what the OP said trying to be edgy? It’s just a fact that America has been so dumbed down they need these basics pointed out. It’s not as if it’s a specific specialty it’s the scientific method which is pretty simple. Yes the way things are presented to the public are confusing and there are many companies forming prettily-named interest groups funding disinformation and public school funding is pathetic and teachers are paid so poorly that in many areas it is hard to find new teachers because college students know that many teachers stay at a school for their whole career if they are lucky and are able to make ends meet and are not pink slipped due to budget cuts etc and therefore they might think there aren’t many openings and college students may be concerned about how they could possibly afford to pay back student loans on a teachers salary. As you can see from the last run- on sentence, I am no expert in many things ( I work at a children’s hospital but that doesn’t make me an expert on grammar or landscaping or how my work car engine works etc) so I want to be clear that I’m not looking down on anyone...but it doesn’t take an expert to recognize when society is being dumbed down; whether through our own laziness or by some sinister conspiratorial design I will not speculate on here.
@@drmantistobboggangonzodr3961 Not really that we have been dumbed down. It's that most Americans assume these news operation check for things this accuracy. They also assume that these studies have also been threw large peer review processes, but as Oliver states this is not true and often enough this is purposely misleading
@jamesk479 So you're gonna be this guy? edition.cnn.com/2019/11/05/us/popeyes-sandwich-stabbing/index.html www.foxnews.com/us/man-stabbed-to-death-in-maryland-popeyes-after-fight-over-chicken-sandwich-report (Just to show it's not one side making up fake news here. It happened.)
If anyone from the show staff ever sees this, thank you. In the process of looking for a new doctor to help me with a specific issue, I was able to weed out a handful of bullshit pseudo science scams in part by looking through these studies and assessing if they were published via a reputable source, something I would not have been able to do before this episode. The work you're doing is absolutely top notch. Thanks.
I'm majoring in Psychology, and honestly, he was spot on in this. p-hacking is a serious problem, but there are ways to restrict it, like doing a Bonferroni correction. What I'm trying to say is that science is tricky, but credible scientists will always go the extra mile to do science that is methodogically sound.
Bonferroni correction does not completely solve P-hacking. The good way to do it is to avoid multiple testing and just test hypothesis that were developped before collecting data, based on expertise and valid peer reviewed litterature.
I think you mean Zivals that scientists who can afford to go the extra mile. A scientist whose tenure or needed paycheque is at risk is not credible? Nice douche canoe, yeesh
So Amine you think the fix is to go into your study with a bias? I doubt that will do anything beneficial. Is anyone commenting on this not a douche canoe? Yeesh
The whole point of your alternative hypothesis is to test your scientific hunch. You aren't going into a study with a bias if you format your study so that this is what you are testing. You ARE introducing bias if you, in some way, doctor your data or otherwise introduce some way that it will be more likely for you to reject your null hypothesis. For example, there's absolutely no harm going into a study saying "I'm testing whether people who eat tomatoes are taller or not. My hypothesis is that they are." But if your collection of tomato-eaters are exclusively Dutch, and your non tomato-eaters are exclusively Indonesian, you've got a problem. The problem was not with your going in testing your hunch; it was with your horrible sampling method. This being said, there isn't an inherent issue with multiple testing. It's ideal to specify prior to collecting our data which hypotheses we will test, and that could be a list of 50 things. If this happens, though, we need to account for this by, as mentioned above, using a Bonferroni or Tukey or some other appropriate correction (ensuring our error rate stays at the same level as it would have had we only run one test instead of the 50).
Scientist here: Please. Please. Please. PLEASE. READ. THE. STUDIES (as best you can, because many are hidden behind paywalls). John is absolutely right here when he says that attractive headlines generate a lot of views/revenue/attention, etc. but the studies themselves could be very easily misrepresented. That is 100% correct. My personal recommendation is when you see these things on the news, find where the study was done, what the sample size was, and please read whatever part of the studies that you can. Media oftentimes hopes that a single headline will be enough for you to base your opinions off of. Unfortunately, many people just read the headline and decide they know everything about the article. Please do your best to be much more well informed and don't be afraid to think critically or develop those skills. Critical thinking is so rare at this point in our world history that it should be considered a superpower.
actually, the paywalls don't mean much. since you don't get commissions for publishing your paper, most scientists will just send you the paper if you ask. just send an email to the author, and he will likely send you the full paper
@@שלובושי Actually, the paywalls MIGHT not mean much. So it's not always true. I've heard of that trick before, and you CAN ask the author, and they MIGHT send you the paper, or (as companies are catching onto people doing this) they do pay the author a small bit, and the author will direct you to the paywall site instead. So it's a good trick, and will often work, but don't be surprised it the scientist just tells you to go pay for it..
@@cevcena6692 Probably not. It's usually best if you read everything. There's a lot contextual things you'll need to verify (sample size, thoroughness of the results, what their p-values are, etc)
+Sergio Ayala H. John Benjamin. he was also briefly on "John Benjamin Has A Van" and he voice acted for the cartoon "Home Movies". if you watch Law & Order SVU you will also recognize B. D. Wong who played George Huang on the show for a number of years.
Years and countless watching later and this piece still makes me laugh so much. I showed this to my high school psych students after we talked about the scientific method and different types of research 😁. (I did try to bleep out the bad words the first time, but honestly, the kids say worse 😂)
By the time kids are in high school, not only have they heard _and_ said much worse, but they have also probably created _new_ curse words that are even _more_ insulting or disrespectful than anything used in this show 😂
You are so correct. The impact of "misreporting" (or rather, carefully placed misinformation by interest groups/corporations making big money) on faith in science is tremendous. Society needs to catch up, but it seems it is starting to.
+Carlos Pérez And bad audiences who don't wanna know that which they're reading. On his "telephone game" comment: just look at a study (even an accurate one) after it's been blogged in 5 steps...
+sorsocksfake THIS! Everyone blames the media, the politicians, the corporations... the truth is that the public is fucking stupid and gets exactly what they want... in the words of George Carlin: "The public sucks... fuck hope..."
Not people who lost faith in "scientific studies". People who are sick of the SJW bullshit. No one hires an ad agency and pays for distribution on the news wires of native ads, only to give an emotional edge to the promotions of their discoveries, loosely described as science. There is absolutely no reason to promote science, if it is science, and not just something a corporate sponsor wants you to believe. We see them on a daily basis, don't you have the sense to recognize big brother, after such pains were invested over so many years by a cast of thousands, in providing his precise description? Gotta be another leftard...no one else could be so hollow.
As a scientist, thank you! I always assume anything coming after "scientists have discovered... " or "A study shows..." to be either a half assed statement or just pure invention/bullshit!
This is very true. I was watching the fox news channel with my mom when they gave a bad science report. It was a piece about sharks, and shark attacks. The fox news reporter said they partially understood what the scientist was talking about because she had seen the movie jaws. Which, obviously, a Hollywood blockbuster is not a good source. I hope to learn how to properly present scientific findings in my chem 100 class, and how to find them.
Immediately paused the video to go and pour myself a glass of wine to enjoy the rest of the show. I'm going to have sore abs tomorrow.
+Bellicose Aries Class of wine. That's a lot of wine.
+Bellicose Aries
Ok
Congratulations, you are cured from cancer. And your babies will have superpowers too, so says a Study!
+Bellicose Aries I was already 1/3 a bottle in was very satisfied with the end including Jon Benjamin
+eagleeye929 And the reason your head hurts, is because its a smart workout.
Being in neuroscience and the psychological sciences, this video hits home. This is why my university teaches rigorous research methods classes.
I also want to add that there have been multiple studies about the effects of a Mediterranean diet (includes a lot of wine) on Alzheimer's prevention. The people in this region of the world have a far less dementia rate in older adults.
+Stannis Baratheon they also have a lower rate in cardiovascular diseases.
babablap Exactly. If only the "news" channels would pick up on actual viable studies such as this one, instead of some pseudoscience article.
Point is, all universities that teach any of the humanities are supposed to teach rigorous research method :p
And no thx, if news actually would pick on actual viable studies, they'd probably present them in such a retarded way that the people do not trust the studies anyways (which is already the case). Mass media basically just uses the abstract of the studies to make up their bs articles
My college Psychology Professor keeps sending us to watch Last Week Tonight videos as part of the course so technically John Oliver is helping me get a bachelor's degree.
Same..even in statistics
@@jasondodsonn lol, we are supposed to watch this video before our stats course starts
I'm here because of a psych class too
on god same here lol
aye sameeee
“You can’t presume 20 women speak for all women. This is science, not the United States Senate”
“In science, you don’t just get to cherry-pick the parts that justify what you were going to do anyway. That’s religion, you’re thinking of religion”
Every episode of this show is good, but this episode just really nailed it
Thats hilarious because during covid John Oliver and all the MSM did exactly that. They cherry-picked what they wanted to push their narrative. All of MSM acted like religious zealots along with most on the left.
They literally said follow the science as they ignored the actual science.
They do the same thing with genders.
A Brand new study says that if you stay awake for 24 hours straight, there are high chances that you'll feel sleepy.
This just in:
A new study shows, that staying awake for less than 24 hours straight causes cancer, autism and radiation poisoning.
Sandy Sandeep
Breaking news: Teen pregnancy drops drastically at the age of 20.
Tonight on the news. A new study shows that eating two-thirds of a baby does not help improve child birth. What's shocking is what else scientists have discovered. More at 10.
A new study shows, that staying alive less than 24 hours a day will lead to death 100% a time.
A recent study says pulling your heart out can reduce the risk of heart attacks by almost 100%.
Can help you lose a few liters of weight too 😂😂😂
*Mola Ram enters the chat.*
@@nicholaslewis8594 who measures weight in liters ? :D
*almost*
a correlation has yet to be researched but another recent study shows that pulling your heart out increases the risks of dying from blood loss by almost 100%.
Gulped 3 glass of champagne and half bottle of red wine with dark chocolate bar while smelling baby fart.. I'm immortal now.
I just cant stop laughing!
😂😂😂
You're immortal, but miserable. Don't miss on your hugs!
Did you eat the whole candy bar or 2/3s of it?
...This is what happened to his liver.
Science has revealed, that dying is the most frequent cause of death
"I'm Perd Hapley..."
Death smiles at us all, all a man can do is smile back...
Citation please
Just like the existence of humans is the biggest link to all our problems and issues. cause? Or correllation???
Hmmm...
Wow!
new scientific studies suggest birthdays may hold the key for immortality; people who have more birthdays, live longer...
+7thChosen lol
Ho. Ly. Shit.
+7thChosen I will have a birthday every day from now on.
+7thChosen But people born on 2/29 tend to die around their 20th birthday, if they're lucky.
+7thChosen I must obtain more birthdays.
A study on studies show studies need to be more carefully studied. Study
Dang it media, he said that studies need to be peer reviewed! They never get it right!
+traxxas777 That's actually called a meta-analysis.
+traxxas777 I hope you ve got paid well for this study
+David Z woah woah woah. We need to replicate the replication studies before we can jump to that conclusion!
+traxxas777 Studiception
THANK. YOU.
OMG LIFE NOGGIN DID YOU KNOW WATCHING YOUR VIDEOS CURES CANCER
4 years ago
Oh wow, I'm a big fan.
Life Noggin has struggled with this nonsense for far too long
YOOO ITS MUH BOI LIFE NOGGIN
scientists: “your reading comprehension is piss poor”
the media: “how dare you say we piss on the poor”
Now this is hilarious!
The media in a nutshell right here ☝🏼
That explains religious people and UFO specialists... and Conservatives. And Feminists... and SJWs...
@@MCPunk55 feminism is comparable to ufo obsession? you do realize that women actually exist right?
@@MyChannel773 Oh yes. They do. Doesn't make Feminism any less bad.
As STEM major. I find this very interesting as nobody ever has talked about this. I always find myself calling ballshit on every time i hear a reporter saying " a study found this...". I think the reason for this is that people are not educated about science of statistics which depict and explain everything Oliver just talked about.
"ballshit"
Um...okay
+dany manchster The idea that "nobody has ever talked about shit" is what is ballshit. I do like the (un)subtle "Well I'm a scientist so my opinion is automatically qualified" backpat though.
+dany manchster The more news stories I see about things I do understand, the less I trust news stories about things I don't understand.
+dany manchster what's ballshit? is that like fromundacheese?
+dany manchster ; "... nobody ever has talked about this...."
.... except for the millions that have, and do.
“There is no Nobel prize for fact checking.”
Well seeing that we’re living in a time of false information there really should be a Nobel prize for that.
Perhaps there should be a prize for that - but in journalism, not in the science Nobel Prize. After all, scientific fact-checking (and scientific journalism) leans (IMO) more towards journalism than towards science degrees. 🙂
Believe last year the Nobel Peace Prize was given to a Russian journalist who fought against misinformation on the Ukraine war ;)
And it'd be pretty straightforward too.... just give it to the top 4 people who did the most fact checking in that year.
@@sohangchopra6478 The whole purpose of science is to check if a fact is not true. By your understanding of science, all scientists are journalists. 😐
The transgender movement is anti scientific.
Why would RUclips possibly age restrict this video? This would be a massively helpful video for young students in helping to navigate the modern age of misinformation.
It's because John Oliver says bad words sometimes.
@@destroyerblackdragon Of course, you can't have kids hear the word "fuck" so let's have them watch videos of Elsa giving the Hulk a colonoscopy that's more suitable 🤡
probably the cocaine part...
Or the bear fellatio part
I don't see how they could.
"Correlation between... eating raw tomatoes and Judaism"
**looks at the raw tomato I'm currently eating** well, that explains it.
Wait wait question, are you eating like a whole tomato? Like an apple? I know this was from a year ago I'm just confused
@@smoot9069 oh yeah. A little salt on a tomato, eat that shit like an apple. So good.
Mediterranean diets love raw tomato salad, so I'm not surprised by that correlation lol.
*looks at the bowl of tomatos I picked from my garden that I'm currently eating*
Damn. I thought I was an atheist, but my belief was based in science, and apparantly science says I'm a Jew.
@@Pro_Butcher_Amateur_Human if a cow has 4 legs, it definitely means that every animal with 4 legs is a cow. definitely.
and btw, being a jew is determined by birth, not religious belief. I, for example, am a jewish atheist
Scientists: "Our findings, out of context, are useless"
News: "Scientists say findings are useless"
Corbbin Goldsmith this is so true though! That would definitely happen! 😂
xD
Right on!
Corbbin Goldsmith
Omg that was brilliant XD.
What's needed is something like an Internal Affairs department for scientific studies... The Department of Studying Studies! It's one of those "Who watches the watchmen?" situations right now; studies can be made to order, manipulated, cherry-picked or buried, all to convey what a company or individual wants them to. This is not science, it is *blasphemy!* Science is about the truth, not convenient lies... Mumble, grumble.
I am going to make the best science. Everyone will see that I make the best science. It will be better than it has ever been. It will be great. I really do the best science. They all say I do the best science.
HAHA
+peterpiperdiedharper You'll talk to your people about it?
trev kivela they already talk about it. Ask anyone. I am the best science man.
~starts slow clap~
Yeah I can now feel how bad it is gonna be if Donald Trump become a scientist.
Scientist: "My findings are meaningless if taken out of context."
Media: "Scientist: 'My findings are meaningless'"
Media has always been garbage for scientific reporting. People need to learn to pick up actual peer reviewed scientific journals, such as PubMED, JCR, CHI, NCBI, JSTOR, et. al.
Brilliant.
@@Overfiend19761 even articles published in prestigious journals is possibly 40% well-masqueraded bullshit. Because, as John Oliver mentioned, rarely anyone is interested in replicating someone else's results. So around 40% of all the published studies in the PRESTIGIOUS scientific journals have never been checked by anyone. Yes, the articles were reviewed for obvious mistakes, but the results weren't replicated for around 40% of the research. Which doesn't stop the media or other scientists to quote those "results". And that's not all... but this comment is too long already.
@@cinegraphics cinegraphics Did you even know GMO is? GMO means Genetic Modified Organism, it's basically refer to strain of plant and animal that had its genetic modified to produce certain result, not fucking sprayed by a poison under the name of roundup
@@cinegraphics shhhhhhhh!!!! Shush your typing fingers :P ! They are sending tons of GMO to poor African and Asian countries as aid. It is the right thing to do ;)
I’d like to point out that a person with social anxiety getting hugged 8 times a day is most definitely not going to increase their happiness
Do you have a study to back that claim up?
What about standing butt to butt? Do you feel the seretonin?
The Trainmobile just adrenaline and my throat closing
@Stephen Witwick nice job telling everyone you're a loser
Stephen Witwick I was referring to the negative reaction to touch some people with social anxiety have
As an MIT Chemistry grad student who does biomedical research, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR DOING THIS, JOHN OLIVER!
I am constantly inundated with articles on my Facebook wall and in my inbox with badly written media articles about studies that may or may not conclude anything newsworthy. People often ask for my opinion on these articles and I'm not comfortable giving it until I have found and read the original paper and other papers in that area. Then the few times I have time to do that nobody listens to my more nuanced professional opinion.
No one ever looks for the original report...even tho all schools ask where is your sources and that isnt a real source ie dictionary.com... few persons online who has a clue
Even worse is that most of those articles say something like "a study, done by people, in a country, some time ago" without actually bothering to cite it properly, or at least in a way that would allow the readers to find it
Big pharmacist actually writing our laws and guess who those laws benefit? Here’s a clue, It ain’t scientific, it’s financial! Where’s my lab coat?
Kardan yeah
Kardan My degree didn't count a citation if it wasn't full Harvard. During spot checks, if they cannot find it, it didn't count.
So we had to make sure to take screen shots of all articles found online in case they didn't have permeant links or were taken down.
A new study shows watching this tv show increases your wit humour and intelligence
hey you Irish !! xD
so true...,
The Irish gamer not to mentioned the wicked urge to burn the world...joker style
"intelligences"
Apparently not then.
Studies show that water is the leading cause of drowning
osmosis453 No shit, Sherlock
@@bakarenibsheut12
Dictionary result for joke
/dʒəʊk/
noun
noun: joke; plural noun: jokes
1.
a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline.
"she was in a mood to tell jokes"
synonyms:
funny story, jest, witticism, quip, pleasantry
You might be on to something...
Cite your source.
Which is super ironic, because water is ~89% oxygen.
I love how Archer was yelling about coffee curing cancer and Bob Belcher talking about eggs.
A study shows birthdays are good for your health. Apparently, the more of them you have, the longer you will live :)
Guy Rutledge and another study performed on 14 humale Xhosa martians born between 1548 - 1539 show that people tend to walk slower if they have lost a leg and that there's a correlation between an immense pain spike and getting shot in the foot.
Autocorrelation
Oh my god, I need to add this to my arsenal of fun facts! Did you know there are also more planes in the sea than there are submarines in the sky? :D
Actually I read a study that says birthdays are bad for you. The more you have, the sooner you'll die. Each birthday takes away 1 year from your life :D
😂😂😂
A comedian fighting for better science communication -I LOVE YOU JOHN OLIVER! WE NEED MORE PEOPLE LIKE YOU!
Hi
The Todd Talk felt like a TV skit out of GTA V.
+The XXI holy shit you're right, celeb cameos and all
I loved it when Archer appeared.
wasn't it bob from bob's burgers?
Adriaan Sluijs Yes, he voiced Bob too
Only better than anything actually in the game!
I am disabled with (4) chronic illnesses, and with little to no research being done on prevention or cures for them, I read all the relevant studies published that I can. But I often I can't access them because of the paywalls. There is a huge need for regular people to access these articles and papers. Often, it is the people suffering with disabling chronic illnesses that bring relevant studies to our doctors attention in hope of trying new treatment. We need to be able to access them!!
I know it’s 3 years later but in case you or anyone in a similar situation happen to see this- please email the scientists!!
You are completely right about the need for open access research, and as a scientist I hope to play a part in changing that culture and improving access. In the short term, though- I strongly encourage anyone who wants to read a paper to send the author an email requesting it.
Scientists want people to read and benefit from and share their work. We don’t get any profit from the journal charging a fee (in fact we had to pay the journal to publish it in the first place). I’ve never met a researcher who wouldn’t happily share their work upon request, and be excited that someone is interested in it.
There should be a corresponding author’s email listed on any article. It’s an annoying extra step that shouldn’t be necessary, but I hope this helps anyone facing a paywall on research that affects their health.
@@andromedatonks60 or use lib gen!
Someone tag Buzzfeed.
why? do they claim to be scientific in their approach? I though they were going for entertainment
+untrue isn't the Today Show going for entertainment as well? That's not an excuse for spreading misinformation.
Spenser Mitchell misinformation as a means for sarcasm
+untrue No, I'm talking about when they are not being sarcastic and they're trying to be scientific.
Spenser Mitchell oh alright I guess I'm not too familiar with buzzfeed
The writers at Buzzfeed are all wondering how they are going to have to change what they are doing... Oh wait... They arent. '39 Reasons Owning a Ferret Will Make You More Fertile' is still going online tomorrow morning.
+Ben Lloyd "1 reason Ben Lloyd is a witch and/or has a time machine" is also going up today
Ironically, I found buzzfeed to be less of a piece of shit than most paper mass media in France, when it comes to scientific studies.
+G Quentin sg
L0veBooBjA BooBjA
which means ?
I looked up what "sg" could stand for. I choose Sega Genesis
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SG
Just chugged 3 glasses of wine... I'm gonna be sore tomorrow
+JM4 lol
+JM4 Put some protein in that wine.
+JM4 you can drive knowing that you are hidratated and will not make an accident on the legal speed limit
bruh lol
tomorrow you should do some white wine. you know, for the muscle confusion.
This is actually an entire new career field. Science Communication. Most folks are getting hired at science magazines or at universities to help communicate science to the public, but instead of PR degrees most folks are coming from a science background so they can vet better.
"Wine makes babies more sociable? Hey Lana. LANA! LANAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
Majed As I'm guessing you never watched Archer?
+Yanto WHAT?!
+Yanto "WHAAAT?!" is Lana's response....always....
+Stephen Duffy phrasing
This one scientist actually purposefully made a “study” that eating chocolate every day is healthy. He knew it was false, but he published it, and every talk show talked about it, and everybody was talking about it. Now this was actually an underlying study that he was conducting to see how people reacted to false info that sounds nice.
Brilliant ! One of your best pieces, I must say!
+asmita behera Hello, random habesha.
+asmita behera Agreed!
+asmita behera agree with that!
*brillnt
I, too, adore John Oliver. Takes complex ideas and explains them with insight and humor.
Question, though. I'm 57, my sons tell me I'm twice the age of the average audience member (yet they themselves don't watch). True?
"Everything causes cancer" isn't WebMD's slogan. It's "everything IS cancer."
@jamesk479 Freak.
@jamesk479 it's fine. Just people get carried away when looking up their symptoms
You sure? I didn’t get cancer on a search... I did get radiation poisoning tho...
It should start listening WebMD as one of the causes of hypochondriacs haha
8:50 I have been waiting over 7 years to pop open that bottle of champaign now that Kissinger is dead.
I really have to go to bed, but John Oliver...
+Booce 2 yep
Are you still awake
+inVINCEable games I KNOOWWW!!!
+inVINCEable games Go to bed with John Oliver and watch it there.
+The solar now its 3
I feel like the root of the problem is how so many scientists and educating needs to pump out these studies in order to stay where they are. It would be far better to fix that than the way the studies are covered, since dealing with the foundation of the issues is often the best way to deal with a problem. Plus science should be about quality not quantity, because 100 poorly performed studies will not compare to 1 or 2 properly set up and performed studies.
Amen.
+John J No, the issue is really how they are reported. The lack of replication studies that John mentioned is also a problem, but scientists know about that and can deal with it. And let's face it, even if more of those studies existed, the media has already done the damage by reporting poorly on the preliminary stuff. The criticism of university press releases is valid though, they often don't help the situation. There are certainly issues with the "publish or perish" system and I agree it needs to be improved, and if studies were better funded and therefore could be bigger etc then yes it would help the conclusions to be more robust and less follow up would be needed, but the bigger problem here is the reporting to the public. As long as that is bad then it doesn't matter how good the underlying science is, the public will still be wildly misled.
+John J How about our government stops cutting research funding every year......so scientists aren't desperate to pump up studies to get scraps of money
Some of the reason studies are poor in quality is due to their use of expensive equipment. so they can have only a couple batches to study. some of these studies also act as a do more research here guide for when costs have come down
+ninjafruitchilled what do you think the solution is? Could there be some sort of litigation caveat for reporting on scientific studies? Let's say, if a scientist finds his work misrepresented in the media can he sue?
As soon as I heard the news, I went straight to this video
It's time for champagne.
People will believe the most ridiculous bullshit ...
especially if it makes them feel important ... and requires no effort.
~ Mark Twain
+Jay Stimson
Sounds like John Oliver himself ;)
*COUGH* religion *COUGH*
Lol.
+Keith Huddleston That's the joke
+Jay Stimson It actually sounds almost believable, because Mark Twain was a noted satirist who loved sarcasm.
I can't hear H. Jon Benjamin's voice without seeing Bob or Archer
he has the best voice
it always comes back to coach mcguirk for me
so he is the voice actor of archer, good, good. i thought i was going insane
+Richard Garcia hell yeah, home movies!!
+Richard Garcia mcguirk every time, didn't enjoy archer as much as home movies
Brilliant.
+vulcanswork Yes
+vulcanswork
*Brillent.
+vulcanswork True but what is the philosopher doing in this? #gotham
Blyat*
lukStSerb
Hahahahahahahah!
8:50 Well...uh...
*pop*
"If and when Henry Kissinger dies." The operative word there is IF, which I doubt is very likely, what with the doctor being a powerful necromancer and all.
It's a reference to an Austin Grossman book called "Crooked", where Henry Kissinger is a thousand year old necromancer and Richard Nixon is a wizard. No, seriously.
Just worked out at the gym for an hour and all I got was drunk. How'd that happen?
You sat down with a flask of vodka.
Gotta drink more flat urine water.
That was a wine bar not a gym. Those two are easily confused according to 8 'experts'(guys hanging around a gym who were bought cheap wine to participate in a study)
did you go empty-stomached? You'll feel like shit if you do.
Why didn't I think of that 'working out' as code for going to get shit-faced?
Yup. I'm a researcher and most science is actually extremely narrow, doesn't change the world, and can be very boring. So to get kids interested in STEM and stay-at-home moms to gossip, media outlets water down and distort results of scientific studies.
“What if I told you the cure for racism was Pepsi?” If only this show had aired later lol
AHH that would have been perfect, the kendall jenner fiasco lmaoo.
Somehow, they predicted the future.
I’m sorry but can you please explain the joke I think I missed something
@@Dezignfuzion The Pepsi commercial during 2020. It showed Jenner solving racism by giving a cop a Pepsi. It was very stupid.
@@HelloHuman1 That sounds fucking hilarious, thank you
Scientist here. We really need more science education so that we can better address the problems that exist in science! I appreciate that John Oliver shines a light on the very real problems science is facing. However, I am concerned that many people will walk away from this segment thinking "no science can be trusted". It is just not true that all studies overclaim the significance of their findings, or base their results on miniscule samples, or engage in p-hacking. My discipline (Psychology) is working towards finding ways to ensure higher quality research, such as making scientists pre-register their hypotheses and study design before running an experiment. Open science can also include sharing your analysis script and data, so that other people can fact-check your work or have an easier time trying to replicate your findings. What you should take away from this segment is "Don't rely on media descriptions of research". If you have access, you should try having a look at the original publications (obviously, it could sometimes be hard to understand them without training - as a psychologist, I could not readily understand a physics paper etc.). Also, there is a continued search for more reliable methods and statistical approaches, such as changing our threshold at which findings become "statistically significant" etc. Most of us scientists strive to produce reliable, valuable research. Give science a chance!
We need a PolitiFact for scientific research.
"Baby powder good for health when eaten"
This study has been found to be FRAUDULENT.
"Chocolate can be okay for diarrhea patients"
This study has been found to be MOSTLY RELIABLE but NOT INDICATIVE of a greater trend.
"Squirrels communicate telepathically"
This study has been found to be CORRECT and of GREAT SIGNIFICANCE.
Scientifically literate journalists breaking down published findings into handy bits, rating their validity and summarizing the contents in short notes. That would be dope. Like a TL;DR at the end of a study.
Very good analysis. Thank you.
Also, maybe introduce a rule that the results of a study can only be published if they've been replicated by two other independent experiments. That way, you don't get the situation where one study's spectacular findings create a media hype, and the findings of any follow-up studies (that may disprove or nuance the findings of the first study) not getting picked up by the media at all, leaving large amounts of people having incorrect or false beliefs.
Only read the first two lines but seams like your right.
25% of this segment was devoted specifically to explaining that a significant amount of science is extremely trustworthy, and that by saying 'a study shows' we are unintentionally destroying people's understanding of science, discrediting as something that can be trusted in and that has real weight behind it, so we need to hold our reporting to higher standards. If you missed that part, you didn't watch the whole thing.
14:50
"In science you don't just get to cherry pick the parts that justify what you were going to do anyway, that's religion, you're thinking of religion."
Give John Oliver a medal for that sentence.
+Christopher Catton Except they do it in science as well...thats a human trait.
As a real scientist, I am actually pleasantly surprised that such a widely-recognized individual managed to described the scientific process with such high accuracy.
John needs to do a segment on actual TED Talks, and how much mumbo-jumbo gets put out in them. And maybe explore why Steve Jobs' sales pitch style came to be the accepted presentation style for research findings.
That's not Jobs' pitch style. He stole that from snake oil salesmen and it's been around forever.
Just have H. John Benjamin do it.
When did Archer become a scientist?
+ackbarfan5556 LANAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
it'd all that time spent with Kreiger.
+ackbarfan5556 That's actually just Bob Belcher. Or What if I were to tell you that he was both?
I believe he's the voice actor for archer
+ackbarfan5556 I KNEW I RECOGNIZED HIS VOICE
I've got a google chrome extension that changes "recent study" to "surprisingly well-researched tumblr post" and it's making this comment section a lot more entertaining
+Brooke Henry What is that extension called? I want it so bad.
xkcd substitutions! Millennials to Snake People and The Trumpweb are fun too, lol.
Thank you! :)
As an aspiring scientist, this segment made me deliriously happy. THANK YOU, John Oliver, for addressing this issue!!!
+randomgirlxrulz I'm currently working on my bachelor thesis in chemistry and this segment encapsulates pretty much everything my superiors are complaining about. It's accurate on an international level.
The concept of Todd talks, and the fact that they're so close to what you see in pop sci articles hurts my soul. Science is irreplacable, and not something that is meant to be easily digestible and forgettable. It defines eras, it revolutionizes the human condition and it makes our very way of life possible, all because of passionate, intelligent people doing hard work every day that get no recognition. I'm ashamed of the very existence of pop sci every single day, and moreso that they're sometimes necessary just for science to get its damn funding.
Well fuckin said
Yeah so sad..
This is one of the most important pieces of journalism I have seen in a long time.
"You're thinking of religion." Best line ever. Forever subscribed.
I think what he meant was "you're thinking of journalism".
@@eloyeligon6676 But that's the subject of the entire video.
"If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless. Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." -James 1:26-27
victor dennett That‘s literally the definition I learned in school.
Eb we already know religion is worthless no need to remind us 😂😂😂 Also plagiarism will not be tolerated in this class. Use better citation 😂😂😂
Certainly worth saying that if hard science studies can be fudged by rearranging data variables, imagine the truth bending that can be done in social sciences. Where questionaires can be skewed, data interpreted instead of reported, and where interviews biased with emotion, can become study findings.
+SAM chandler MGTOW Social "science" is not actual science.
+Fonzie Gonz Haha!
+Fonzie Gonz lies, it uses the scientific method.
+Fonzie Gonz
yes it is and the OP doesn't understand what he is talking about. They are held to the same standard as the hard sciences. If that is what you got out of this video you missed the point entirely.
Statistics is all about skewing data and making it sound mathmatical. Confidence intervals, margin of error. terms which are chosen by the scientist and can drastically effect the conclusion of data
Thanks for H. Jon Benjamin always makes me smile.
As a scientist, I applaud this video. Thanks John!
What kind of scientist?
John Oliver talking about cocaine sniffing rats applauded by scientists. Next up: Can too much applause kill you? Scientists say: "... uh what..." More after the break.
I'm glad SOMEONE finally did a story on this. The press is so damn lazy. Good job, John Oliver.
> being a scientist
> watching this video
> feelsbad.jpg
Me, too brah... I mean, who's honestly going to read my studies on internal waves in the Puget Sound region via close-proximity station anomalies when the ultimate conclusion is: internal waves are important and evidence supports that there may be internal waves in Puget Sound, however we don't know a lot about them and this is why we need to study even more :/ feels bad. No funding.
For Oceanography, it does produce something tangible, and it's not useless. Keeping an eye on internal waves allows data to be compared, the more data we collect on internal waves, the more we can use that data to compare to other internal waves in other regions. Oceanography is sort of a weird field, we publish papers even if it doesn't produce anything extremely tangible, and we make sure to go back and do follow-up studies on old research to validate others' research. Someone has already explored internal waves in Puget Sound, I was going back and both validating that internal waves exist in Puget Sound, and also searching for internal waves in other regions. The reason I have not received any funding is because I am an undergraduate and nobody cares about undergraduates XD
Mildly Amusing Channel hi, yes, so we live this space that most of us like to consider reality. While the average person might be content to rise through reality feeling complacent, scientists tend to be more curious. While I tend to be pulled more towards applied science myself, I realize that *all* of my research is built upon research done by researchers like Monique. Applied science needs a VERY solid foundation of pure science to be even somewhat functional for applied processes.
Just a quick glance at internal waves on Google, it sounds like understanding them better would give us another way to quantify how changes in the climate are affecting our oceans via increases in sediment or massive die offs of plankton.
And I'm not a climate scientist or a.....o actually dont know what field Monique would be part of. I'm a biologist. If I can Google to figure out the importance of the study, you should have been able to as well, instead of just ragging on someone's passion like some kind of jerk.
Me too
im in tears lolol
...guess it's time to break out the champagne
It's a sad day, when a talk show host has to explain the importance of scientific studies to America like he would to a kid.
MapleMeHoney oh fuck off edge lord 😂
Egenio Jaramillo how is what the OP said trying to be edgy? It’s just a fact that America has been so dumbed down they need these basics pointed out. It’s not as if it’s a specific specialty it’s the scientific method which is pretty simple. Yes the way things are presented to the public are confusing and there are many companies forming prettily-named interest groups funding disinformation and public school funding is pathetic and teachers are paid so poorly that in many areas it is hard to find new teachers because college students know that many teachers stay at a school for their whole career if they are lucky and are able to make ends meet and are not pink slipped due to budget cuts etc and therefore they might think there aren’t many openings and college students may be concerned about how they could possibly afford to pay back student loans on a teachers salary. As you can see from the last run- on sentence, I am no expert in many things ( I work at a children’s hospital but that doesn’t make me an expert on grammar or landscaping or how my work car engine works etc) so I want to be clear that I’m not looking down on anyone...but it doesn’t take an expert to recognize when society is being dumbed down; whether through our own laziness or by some sinister conspiratorial design I will not speculate on here.
@@drmantistobboggangonzodr3961 relax edge lord
@@drmantistobboggangonzodr3961 Not really that we have been dumbed down. It's that most Americans assume these news operation check for things this accuracy. They also assume that these studies have also been threw large peer review processes, but as Oliver states this is not true and often enough this is purposely misleading
don't talk you canadians think maple syrup is good for you
"Anyone is more open to anything when they're not hungry"
Not food, though.
Or murder suicide.
@@klobiforpresident2254 why not both join the cannibalism church
@jamesk479
So you're gonna be this guy?
edition.cnn.com/2019/11/05/us/popeyes-sandwich-stabbing/index.html
www.foxnews.com/us/man-stabbed-to-death-in-maryland-popeyes-after-fight-over-chicken-sandwich-report
(Just to show it's not one side making up fake news here. It happened.)
If anyone from the show staff ever sees this, thank you. In the process of looking for a new doctor to help me with a specific issue, I was able to weed out a handful of bullshit pseudo science scams in part by looking through these studies and assessing if they were published via a reputable source, something I would not have been able to do before this episode.
The work you're doing is absolutely top notch. Thanks.
I just realized that the guy yelling "coffee cures cancer" is the voice actor of Archer
And Bob from Bob's burgers. Lol.
Yep, H. Jon Benjamin
Me too Lmfao
@Rory wait, are we still not doing phrasing?
anyone else notice the voice of Archer in the TODD talks thing?
NoBop2000 that is intact why I liked the video lol
NoBop2000 it was very disorienting.
Waylon Savage
the guy in the white jacket is the voice of gene and Bob of Bob's burgers
I believe that is the same guy who voices Archer :)
Huh. All Archer had to do to cure his breast cancer was drink coffee?!
NOW YOU TELL ME! RAMPAAAAGE!
LANA
haha Brett died
Well he lived through! Right!? Besides he destroyed a CIA facility!
High. Way. To. The.
+Matt Watt DANGER ZOOOONE
I'm majoring in Psychology, and honestly, he was spot on in this. p-hacking is a serious problem, but there are ways to restrict it, like doing a Bonferroni correction. What I'm trying to say is that science is tricky, but credible scientists will always go the extra mile to do science that is methodogically sound.
Bonferroni correction does not completely solve P-hacking. The good way to do it is to avoid multiple testing and just test hypothesis that were developped before collecting data, based on expertise and valid peer reviewed litterature.
I think you mean Zivals that scientists who can afford to go the extra mile. A scientist whose tenure or needed paycheque is at risk is not credible? Nice douche canoe, yeesh
So Amine you think the fix is to go into your study with a bias? I doubt that will do anything beneficial. Is anyone commenting on this not a douche canoe? Yeesh
You lost me at “I’m majoring in psychology.”
The whole point of your alternative hypothesis is to test your scientific hunch. You aren't going into a study with a bias if you format your study so that this is what you are testing. You ARE introducing bias if you, in some way, doctor your data or otherwise introduce some way that it will be more likely for you to reject your null hypothesis. For example, there's absolutely no harm going into a study saying "I'm testing whether people who eat tomatoes are taller or not. My hypothesis is that they are." But if your collection of tomato-eaters are exclusively Dutch, and your non tomato-eaters are exclusively Indonesian, you've got a problem. The problem was not with your going in testing your hunch; it was with your horrible sampling method.
This being said, there isn't an inherent issue with multiple testing. It's ideal to specify prior to collecting our data which hypotheses we will test, and that could be a list of 50 things. If this happens, though, we need to account for this by, as mentioned above, using a Bonferroni or Tukey or some other appropriate correction (ensuring our error rate stays at the same level as it would have had we only run one test instead of the 50).
9:00 Dammit! I missed my chance to drink!
Wait, isn't one of those people on TODD talk the guy who voices Archer and Bob from Bob's Burgers?
Yes
Yah, and another is B.D. Wong, from Law and Order SVU.
Da Foo The psychologist?
Natasha Murray Yep.
Da Foo Oh, I like him! I like that character! Shame I didn't recognize him in this.
Archer retired as a spy and became a scientist.
Finally found someone who also noticed archer
Ok I'm not crazy I could have sworn I heard him in there
Scientific proof there is a danger zone.
Mother!
MOTHER!
MOTHER!!!!!!
Archer giving a Tedd talk is something I didn't know I needed until I had it.
Oh my god that coffee scientist was H. Jon Benjamin!
+Kiba Bloodfang I closed my eyes and imagined Archer yelling.
+Jayanth Kumar PHRASING!!!!
+Kiba Bloodfang DANGERZONE!!
+Kiba Bloodfang Glad I am not the only one who noticed.
+Erik Verkade JUST FUCKING SHOOT THE BEAR
Today is the day, drink up!
'If you're celebrating with champagne three times a week, your standards for celebration need to be much higher' = GOLD
B.D. Wong and H. Jon Benjamin....ya done good, Mr. Oliver, ya done good! :-)
I lost it with H. Jon Benjamin, instantly favorited. This was pure gold.
Scientist here: Please. Please. Please. PLEASE. READ. THE. STUDIES (as best you can, because many are hidden behind paywalls). John is absolutely right here when he says that attractive headlines generate a lot of views/revenue/attention, etc. but the studies themselves could be very easily misrepresented. That is 100% correct. My personal recommendation is when you see these things on the news, find where the study was done, what the sample size was, and please read whatever part of the studies that you can. Media oftentimes hopes that a single headline will be enough for you to base your opinions off of. Unfortunately, many people just read the headline and decide they know everything about the article. Please do your best to be much more well informed and don't be afraid to think critically or develop those skills. Critical thinking is so rare at this point in our world history that it should be considered a superpower.
Is it fine if I just read the abstract and the conclusion in the scientific papers?
actually, the paywalls don't mean much. since you don't get commissions for publishing your paper, most scientists will just send you the paper if you ask.
just send an email to the author, and he will likely send you the full paper
@@שלובושי Actually, the paywalls MIGHT not mean much. So it's not always true. I've heard of that trick before, and you CAN ask the author, and they MIGHT send you the paper, or (as companies are catching onto people doing this) they do pay the author a small bit, and the author will direct you to the paywall site instead. So it's a good trick, and will often work, but don't be surprised it the scientist just tells you to go pay for it..
@@cevcena6692 Probably not. It's usually best if you read everything. There's a lot contextual things you'll need to verify (sample size, thoroughness of the results, what their p-values are, etc)
No One:
Stirling Archer: COFFEE CURES CANCER!!!
I was looking for an archer comment
Coffee causes Cancer
Thank you, professor Bob's Burgers
Sterling Archer? I think you meant Bob Belcher ;) :)
He's both neither and both!
WE DID IT! WE FINALLY DID IT!
OMG THATS THE VOICE ACTOR FOR ARCHER AND BOBS BURGERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
+Sergio Ayala Dude's done a bit more than that. Look up H Jon Benjamin on IMDB.
+Sergio Ayala LAAAAANNNNAAAA!
+Sergio Ayala H. John Benjamin. he was also briefly on "John Benjamin Has A Van" and he voice acted for the cartoon "Home Movies". if you watch Law & Order SVU you will also recognize B. D. Wong who played George Huang on the show for a number of years.
+Sergio Ayala He also played a can of vegetables in a moive who talks to Christopher Meloni (Law and Order and Oz) ^_^
+Sergio Ayala - yep...H. Jon Benjamin. used to have a show of his own called Jon Benjamin Has A Van
Years and countless watching later and this piece still makes me laugh so much. I showed this to my high school psych students after we talked about the scientific method and different types of research 😁. (I did try to bleep out the bad words the first time, but honestly, the kids say worse 😂)
By the time kids are in high school, not only have they heard _and_ said much worse, but they have also probably created _new_ curse words that are even _more_ insulting or disrespectful than anything used in this show 😂
Its the weirdest thing that my LWT playlist shuffled up this today of all days. Today is the 1st of December 2023. Pop that champagne John
"Nothing up with Acai berries" actually sounds like my or my classmates' Bachelor thesis...
You can tell how done he is with media's stupidity and I love it.
+crazeechickee11 Studies show that media stupidity is the main info source for Americans.
A brand new study shows that hearing Archer and/or Bob's voice on someone other than Archer/Bob is very strange.
Even Coach McGuirk?
if u listen to it and while reading the comments. u can imagine its Archer or Bob.
He'll always be coach Mcguirk to me.
It took me a second but I quickly caught on once he started yelling.
Whilst I'll always remember McQuirk, he was just a secondary character, so I will never remember him as intensely as a titular character.
You are so correct. The impact of "misreporting" (or rather, carefully placed misinformation by interest groups/corporations making big money) on faith in science is tremendous. Society needs to catch up, but it seems it is starting to.
B.D. Wong!! One of the greatest actors ever!!
I noticed him too!
Is that the scientist guy that helped create the dinosaurs for Jurassic Park?
nah! He is White Rose from Mr. Robot
Good actor, with a very racist last name.
L Z Yes! 😊
It's not just fake science or bad journals, it's also bad journalists who don't know what they are reading
It's also the corporate media wanting to report what's interesting, which is what John is showing here
+Carlos Pérez It's those penny-a-click "writers" you see hogging all the space at Starbucks when you try to find a place to sit.
+AbsentWithoutLeaving exactly!!!
+Carlos Pérez
And bad audiences who don't wanna know that which they're reading. On his "telephone game" comment: just look at a study (even an accurate one) after it's been blogged in 5 steps...
+sorsocksfake THIS! Everyone blames the media, the politicians, the corporations... the truth is that the public is fucking stupid and gets exactly what they want... in the words of George Carlin: "The public sucks... fuck hope..."
A new study shows that being alive will eventually lead to death.
Ain't faux science grand?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
What if you have your brain cryogenically frozen like Ted Williams? However, you do need to make sure that the place will pay their electric bill.
Here on the day Henry Kissinger died-- I need to go buy some champagne
As Hank Green has said multiple times, "Correlation does not imply causation."
"I think the best way to live is pick the best study that suits you.." (roughly worded...) WTF WHO SAYS THAT?!
Well, I'm not a Scientist, but I think Al Roker of the Today Show said that, since I HEARD him say it!
Thank you for the clarification.
people who have lost trust in scientific studies i suppose.
Not people who lost faith in "scientific studies". People who are sick of the SJW bullshit.
No one hires an ad agency and pays for distribution on the news wires of native ads, only to give an emotional edge to the promotions of their discoveries, loosely described as science. There is absolutely no reason to promote science, if it is science, and not just something a corporate sponsor wants you to believe.
We see them on a daily basis, don't you have the sense to recognize big brother, after such pains were invested over so many years by a cast of thousands, in providing his precise description?
Gotta be another leftard...no one else could be so hollow.
Basically every person on the internet who gets into an argument.
LOL at Archer on stage on the TODD talk!
Erick Mendez That was golden
8:55 boy do i have some news for you
As a scientist, thank you!
I always assume anything coming after "scientists have discovered... " or "A study shows..." to be either a half assed statement or just pure invention/bullshit!
Wouldn't it be funny if the guy said "The cure to racism is coffee, but not black coffee"?
lmao!!!!!
yea
+SuperWeirdo44 HAHAHAHA omg, your comment actually made me laugh out loud. Genius comment, you should be at the top
+SuperWeirdo44 “… but not the black one”. A little ambiguity always helps.
+SuperWeirdo44 so the original wasn't funny?
I can only ever think of Archer when i hear H. Jon Benjamin talk...
I'm just imagining Archer saying all these things lol
This is very true. I was watching the fox news channel with my mom when they gave a bad science report. It was a piece about sharks, and shark attacks. The fox news reporter said they partially understood what the scientist was talking about because she had seen the movie jaws. Which, obviously, a Hollywood blockbuster is not a good source. I hope to learn how to properly present scientific findings in my chem 100 class, and how to find them.