When to distrust scholarly journals

[@veritasetcaritas]

A couple of times I use the word "theory" in this video, such as in the phrase "pet scientific theory", but I should note I'm not using it in the formal scientific sense of an established, evidence based, widely accepted scientific explanation for a phenomenon, but in the more casual lay sense of something someone thinks is true. I took care to refer to the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis as a hypothesis throughout this video, so if I ever slipped up and called it something else, I apologize.

[@dharmaqueen7877]

A theory is just a concept or idea, not a fact. When anyone insists that a word means something different when certain people use it, I take it as evidence of an attempted deception.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@dharmaqueen7877 in science the word theory does not mean "just a concept or idea, not a fact". It has a specific meaning. The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are not simply concepts or ideas which are not facts.

[@h3rbsman]

@@dharmaqueen7877confidently incorrect much

[@user-wf8do7uf8v]

@@dharmaqueen7877 You sound like a flat earther who spouts "But gravity is JUST a theory! Not a fact!" Actually learn what "theory" means in the context of science. Theory is the highest level of explanation in science. It's not "just a guess" or "just an opinion".

[@Masterhistory1492]

Sometimes I think certain video creators cite sources just to say they did research, without even reading them.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I totally agree.

[@kilgore_trout_37]

Tiniest grain of salt- publications like these are specifically made to trick journalists. But the bar to be a journalist that’s not easily fooled is in hell.

[@godminnette2]

More than just video creators - this happens constantly on social media.

[@ohauss]

@@godminnette2 And even if they read them, all too often, they didn't understand them. It's not like academic publications are meant for the average Joe to digest. Subject matter expertise helps quite a bit understanding what a certain publication does or does not show and what the research approach is fundamentally unfit to show in the first place.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@ohauss pseudo-scientists and pseudo-archaeologists often use scientific papers as talismans rather than as genuine research. They think it's enough to simply cite the journal in order to establish their point, using the paper in a performative ritual of science instead of real science.

[@Topheragger]

This is the most thorough detailed levelheaded and polite teardown of anything I have ever seen

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you. I put hours of work into it, checking everything in case I messed something up. I wouldn't be surprised if I still missed one or two issues.

[@oz_jones]

Manners maketh man.

[@jamesmacdonald5556]

@@veritasetcaritas Like the history of cosmology.

[@grcrocker]

This is a really great explanation of peer review and source evaluation. It’s genuinely better than anything I remember hearing as a junior undergrad and I’ll be saving it in case any of my students need to see something like this. Well done.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you so much. This year I'll be making more videos on pre-publication and post-publication peer review processes, as well as how to identify good journals, predatory journals, and vanity journals. I've started that series with this video. kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIbFgYqAZayBfLcsi=-pQvFefe-jwG2nGV

[@athelwulf9971]

As useful this is to me as an undergrad historian. I'm afraid the general public has an increasingly significantly anti-intellectual trend. Sometimes it feels like the more effort you put into trying to rationalize or explain something you've studied. The more distrustful they become of the evidence you try and provide.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Alas, yes.

[@Communizer]

it becomes especially hard when the social sciences like history, sociology, political science, civic studies, economics, and other soft sciences are universally degraded outright. I believe we are going into an area of a legitimate anti-information altered reality syndrome that will send us back in scientific progress, and media literacy being at an all time low is dangerous to some degree. I wouldn't say its anti-intellectualism, its a clear-cut effort to undermine reality for a sick game of personal gain disguised as "anti-establishment" or "taking back the narrative."

[@veritasetcaritas]

Carl Sagan was an unpleasant man, but his prediction of what you describe was prescient.

[@dharmaqueen7877]

Rationalizations and explanations do not count as evidence, which is what real science is based on.

[@BasedGauncho]

Water flows downhill. Consider the idea that it is the institutions themselves that are becoming anti-intellectual. If you think I am wrong, then answer a simple question. How do you think the Harvard graduating class of 2024 stacks up against 1924? Which one had more academically rigorous courses? It is no wonder why the public has become anti-intellectual. They get their ques from those in high society.

[@D3ath0n4tor]

thank you for this video. i'm in my third semester of grad school and the tools you mentioned just opened a new world for me.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thanks, I'm so glad it was helpful!

[@GA-1st]

Not all peer-reviewed journals are created equal! Of course, the anti-science crowd will immediately use this information to inductively conclude that one cannot rely upon ANY peer-reviewed journals.

[@ordinaryrat]

And then they will also find one singular extremely sketchy (better if its already disproven) study and run with that, while simultaneously stating that studies are not to be trusted.

[@Kinzarr4ever]

In my mind that completely misses the point (but then again, we ARE talking about the anti-science crowd here :D); and that point is: "You can go read peer-reviewed stuff, and sources, yourself; the beauty of the process is that you don't have to blindly rely on any one person or publication or source or thing."

[@dharmaqueen7877]

There is no place in science for faith, so I don't trust any peer review. If they can't provide evidence for a claim (that which is observable by anyone, not only the high priests) then they shouldn't expect anyone to accept it as true. Trust is just another word for faith.

[@hooligan9794]

While what you say is trueI have found the "I love science" crowd to be equally frustrating. There is no more eyebrow raising claim these days than "Studies show". Quite often "studies show" = "1 activist researcher, toilet paper study, supports my ideology" This problem is rife in the far-left influenced humanities fields like sociology and psychology. (Stars of the replication crisis). The failure of these fields to root out the ideologues has rendered then unreliable.

[@موسى_7]

​@@hooligan9794 Science in the past was used to justify racism until more modern science proved them wrong and exposed their racist bias. I learnt this from the KZbin channel @yaboihakim, and his video on "scientific" racism. Science, specifically the American Heart Association, also lied to humanity about saturated fats, and even now that they've been exposed by the scientific community, people still listen to them and their continued lies about saturated fats.

[@hive_indicator318]

For me, the first red flag on Dan's scientific literacy was when he stated that a hypothesis was a theory. That's pretty basic stuff

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yes, pseudo-archaeologists often use scientific terms in very loose ways, with layman definitions. Dan is usually more careful with his language, so that did surprise me.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Unfortunately yes!

[@xaviermagnus8310]

​@@veritasetcaritasDamn yt hides comments from the channel creator too

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@xaviermagnus8310 yeah I have no idea what happened to that comment. I sometimes receive notifications for comments which I can't find when I click on the link or look in the comments secction of KZbin Studio. KZbin's entire comment system is very unpredictable.

[@hooligan9794]

Theory has a colloquial meaning. A hypothesis is a theory, just a largely unvetted one. While the terms are definitely not generally used interchangeably, it remains true that in the English language a hypothesis is a flavour of theory. The idea that someone who is educated in the nomenclature of science should not or would not use a colloquially use of a word to make a point is bizarre. Try to remember that not everyone is on the spectrum and many people are capable of understanding the speakers meaning if the language is not hyper-exact, nomenclature-only, academic speak. You are watching a KZbin video.

[@heavymetalpancake]

15 seconds in, i see words "younger dryas impact". instant "ancient apocalypse" flashbacks

[@veritasetcaritas]

For good reason!

[@ohauss]

When looking at the editorial board of the journal, it is also worthwhile to check against a)the names of the authors and b)the websites of the authors as to who else works in their teams or immediate institution. A bunch of journals have been founded just to publish an erstwhile reputable scientist's late-career follies. And that goes all the way to Nobel laureats....

[@veritasetcaritas]

Very good point. I'd like to make a separate video on vanity journals and predatory journals.

[@stephenfoley1261]

The use of so called "vanity" journals has exploded in the last 20 years, driven by the "publish or perish" mindset. Also the very few legit Expanding Earthers and Plasma Cosmologists pioneered the trick of publishing their crap in inappropriate journals, eg: Plasma Physics journals, the idea being to slip past reviewers who don't know the topic.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I really want to make more videos on those issues.

[@KnightspaceORG]

Oh, I'm so glad there still exist channels like yours on this platform. Cheers!

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you!

[@AnarchistArtificer]

A minor correction: At 27:08, you say "remember when I noted that this paper has a PubPeer notification on it when I viewed it on my web browser?". However, this is said when viewing the *journal* webpage, not the particular article. I wouldn't usually flag what seems to be a fairly trivial "verbal typo", except that the section heading in the top left says "Concerns about how the paper was reviewed", which may give the incorrect impression that this particular paper having received 7 PubPeer comments (as opposed to 7 out of 12 of the papers by this journal having PubPeer comments) Another aspect of why I am pointing out this error is that watching your videos makes me think more deeply about "good scholarship", and more mindful of what it means to engage in good faith. This video in particular has got me thinking about the spectrum of peer review, and how informal systems of peer review that arise organically and are rooted in a sense of community can be more effective at curating trust; whereas the widespread view (at least, in the sciences) is that peer review leverages trust in order to publish research, my opinion is that trust is the "real" product of peer review, and the research is, in a sense, a necessary cofactor for generating trust. To that end, my comment can be seen as an attempt to situate myself as your peer. I didn't realise this until I was part-way through writing and I realised that "good faith criticism that contributes to a wider discussion" is, in my view, a pillar of both academic peer review, and online community (of the non-toxic and interesting kind). I really enjoy how the internet makes me evaluate what I consider to be "meaningful scholarly discussion"; obviously a KZbin video isn't a proper scholarly work, but people such as yourself have made videos "peer-reviewing" fellow KZbinrs in a manner that contributes to a new semi-independent scholarly sphere, Where is the line, I wonder? Can the viewership of a KZbinr constitute another scholarly sphere, and have something meaningful to say? I don't know, but I suppose that in making this comment, I am giving it a go.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yes the image shown was the journal webpage, but the statement was true; the paper has a PubPeer notification on it when I viewed it in my web browser. Here's the link to the paper. www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14293/ACI.2024.0003 When I view that paper I see the notification for PubPeer comments. And yes, the notification on the top of the page for the actual paper shows the same notification for PubPeer comments on seven articles as when I was viewing the journal page. I strongly agree with your comments on peer-review, and will be making additional videos on what peer review is, and how it extends well beyond the initial pre-publication process. I go into that in some detail in another of my videos, in which I discuss informal peer review systems such as the invisible college. kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIbFgYqAZayBfLc

[@Megaritz]

I knew the phrase "peer-reviewed" wasn't a guarantee of scientific legitimacy, ever since I first found a homeopathy journal calling itself "peer-reviewed" a decade or so ago. (I don't remember the name of the journal.)

[@veritasetcaritas]

Great example of how the system is circumvented. This is exactly why post-publication peer review is so important. Pre-publication peer review is really just an initial step in the process of academic scrutiny.

[@dharmaqueen7877]

Peer reviewed just means peer approved. Peer pressure is not science.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@dharmaqueen7877 peer review is not peer pressure, and correct peer review is science.

[@user-wf8do7uf8v]

@@dharmaqueen7877 Learn literally anything about the scientific process and method instead of spewing anti-science nonsense in this comment section. Watching this video is a good start.

[@ordinaryrat]

There is a channel called uncivilized, and they made a decently popular video (+1 million views) where they try to claim that the fall of the Roman, Ottoman Empires and the Soviet Union can predict the fall of the USA. I don't care about the politics but there historical claims are absurd. For instance, they say that a signficant reason why Rome fell was because of the rise of the Byzantine Empire. I was going to make a response video (i still might), but I don't really have any experience with it and my voice sounds too young for anyone to take me seriously I think (Im 17).

[@veritasetcaritas]

Don't worry about your voice, mine is naturally pitched high (I'm in the male tenor range), and people sometimes make assumptions about how young and therefore inexperienced I must be, incredible as that may sound. These kinds of historical counter-factuals are very much more wishful thinking than practical analysis. To me they're like a lot of the predictions of self-declared futurists, not to mention many so-called "political analysts", often self-described. I would be interested in looking at that video though.

[@Wallyworld30]

This would be like saying the Carthage Empire fell because of the rize of Punic Empire.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

There are a lot of problems with people claiming about the fall of anything. Defining what is even considered a "fall" in the first place is murky.

[@Wallyworld30]

@ What OP was talking about with someone butchering it by claiming Byzantine Empire caused fall of Roman Empire. Which is of course ludacris since Byzantine Empire IS the Roman Empire. A proper fall would be like Soviet Union falling apart or Nazi's in WW2.

[@swirvinbirds1971]

​@@veritasetcaritascrazy that people think age is a factor in how educated someone is on a subject. I'm 54 years old and work under people that are in their 30's as they have skills and knowledge that I simply do not have. I have an AAS in applied sciences while they have masters and PhD's...

[@halflifeger4179]

Great video. Day by day, I am horrified by how our world slips further and further into anti-intellectualism, no doubt accelerated by declining attention spans and standards of formal education. A grim outlook for the future

[@veritasetcaritas]

I feel exactly the same way, which is why I'm creating videos like this. I hope they can help innoculate people against misinformation.

[@John_Buckson]

dedunking is such as peice of work to put it politely; the way he treated/acted to the gentleman who tore apart Graham Hancock has been absolutely DESPICABLE.

[@veritasetcaritas]

His behavior after that debate was atrocious.

[@hannadevries9615]

This is a great video, very useful beyond its particular context too! I'm a research librarian in the Humanities and will definitely be suggesting this video to my students. One comment: around 37:30 you seem to interpret the statement "all co-authors may receive reimbursements (...) for attending symposia" as a red flag indicating financial benefit. However, getting reimbursed for attending research conferences is standard academic practice - academics aren't usually expected to fund their conference trips themselves. If they'd said "co-authors may receive speaker fees" we might be in red flag territory, but reimbursements are normal (although perhaps so normal that the fact that they even mention it is suspicious in itself?)

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thanks for the careful scrutiny! Yeah the reason why I said it was a red flag is precisely because they put it in the "conflict of interest" section, indicating that the reimbursements they receive from these symposia are in some way a conflict of interest. My interpretation of this, which I should have explained in detail, is that these are symposia held by the Comet Research Group, the organization which owns the journal. I can't think of any other symposia which are being held regularly over the YDIH, and which would be a conflict of interest. Being reimbursed for your attendance of symposia held by the organization which owns the journal in which you're publishing your paper, is to my mind just adding another level of academic nepotism. Virtually every author who has ever published an article in Airbursts and Cratering Impacts is a member of the Comet Research Group, so this reimbursement for symposia attendance looks a lot like people basically being incentivized to attend gatherings which promotes the view of the organization to which they belong, in order to generate publications for the journal owned by the organization to which they belong.

[@klawiehr]

35:34 I lol’d 41:43 Kudos to you for bringing up scope of competence and deferring to experts. Not many youtubers do that when they speak outside their realm of expertise. I can mostly read neuroscience papers since that’s a relevant field to mine, but medical and astrophysics papers… nope.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you. I know I'll get some people responding by saying "Well how can you dismiss the paper without actually reading and assessing it yourself, deferring to authority is lazy", and some people might even accuse me of the fallacy of arguing from authority, but the fact is I don't have the knowledge to understand and critique the paper independently, and non-specialists need to realise that they should defer to specialist knowledge unless there are extremely good reasons to do otherwise. And let's be clear on this; that is exactly what Dan did when he cited this paper in the first place. He believed it because it was cited by a Forbes journalist, and because it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. He didn't assess the paper independently himself, and I doubt he even read it. The people who tell you "Don't just defer to authority, that's lazy thinking, be independent, think for yourself!" when you dismiss a claim which has been rejected by scholarly consensus, are often the same people who automatically defer to authority as soon as it seems to favor their personal views.

[@ohauss]

I mean, even within a given discipline, it's hard to fully assess a paper if it's not immediately within your field of speciality. I'm a biomedical scientist by training, currently working a lot with cardiology papers, but since I'm not a physician, have no idea what the h... is going on in a depiction of an echocardiograph. My expertise is in understanding the molecular and cellular processes, mechanisms of drugs etc.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@ohauss yes, very much so. If Dan ever sees this video and charges me with dismissing the journal paper illegitimately since I didn't read it, I'll ask him to explain why he thinks the paper is high quality, based on his own reading of the paper. I doubt he read it, and I doubt he could explain why it should have passed the initial peer reviews.

[@ladygrey4113]

@@klawiehr same the most I’ll get on an outside field’s case on is if they poorly designed an experiment, have garbage stats interpretation (I took enough clases to minor but didn’t want to do the paper work close to graduation) or don’t bother explaining how they arrived at conclusions and just slap a graph and call it a day

[@zachfred958]

It’s really frustrating for a layman like me to see people taking advantage of terms, and bad studies, to spread knowing lies on the internet. Really gives the whole thing a bad reputation, and limits the amount of trust people are willing to have in academia, in spite of the fact that academia isn’t the one doing it.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I agree.

[@dharmaqueen7877]

I don't trust academia. It is up to academia to give evidence (not explanations) for any claims they make and not just say "trust me bro".

[@dharmaqueen7877]

Interesting that my comment about not trusting academia disappeared.

[@zachfred958]

@@dharmaqueen7877 “I don’t trust academia. It’s up to academia to give evidence (not explanations) for any claims they make and not just say “trust me bro”.” ^ This sentiment is part of the problem. “Interesting that my comment about not trusting academia disappeared.” ^ This is also part of the problem Firstly who are we not trusting here? Academia is a gigantic heterogeneous group of people. Can I get an example of who academia is in this context? Researchers? Professors? Publishers? Just anybody who works in a college? Can I have an example of your definition of academia not giving evidence for a claim? Finally, you are implying that somebody with ill intent, deleted your first comment, but unless you have some proof I don’t, it could have been any number of things that made it “disappear” could simply have been a bug, could have been automatically moderated by yt itself, could have been anything really. As an addendum since you’ve not responded, my point was to say that the conspiratorial thinking that leads to both of your comments are what lead people to quacks and pseudoscientists. The problem is not the academics, they hardly even defend themselves from any accusations, or misuse of their work. The problem, is people who go about life sowing the seeds of disbelief and discontent. So we all reap the reward of a society that doesn’t have trust.

[@LaputaScorefinger]

You're so fricking good, man. Thank you for your work.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you!

[@whereammy]

when it doesn't align with my priors, duh.

[@canadianragin]

Excellent case study. While many of those flags are personally a quick turn-off for me when searching for sources, I think it’s worth it sometimes to work through an example to its conclusion

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you! I'm the same, I only need a few serious red flags to know further investigation isn't necessary, but in this case I went the whole distance for the benefit of viewers. As you can see, along the way I gave the journal multiple chances in good faith, despite the increasing number of red flags, but by the time I reached the end of the editorial process and the review of the editorial board, anyone should have been able to see that further investigation wasn't really necessary.

[@Onesoul71]

When to distrust everyone: Always. Taking things at face value because they come from X authority or trusted 'source' is unscientific by definition. Or isn't it?

[@veritasetcaritas]

Taking things at face value just becuase they come from X authority or trusted source is fine. Trusting them to be TOTALLY ACCURATE just becuase they come from X authority or trusted source is NOT fine. But as a heuristic, trusting such sources at face value is fine, and that's what people do every day. They use cars trusting they've been made safely, they use bridges trusting they've been made safely, they fly in planes trusting they've been made safely and will be operated safely, they go to doctors and trust medicine they are given. All of this works out extremely well in 99% of cases.

[@Hilianus]

I am aghast that you don't yet have a bigger audience. As dry and long-winded as your format is, people with academic integrity should recommend you left and right for the betterment of online education in general.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you! I am not great at making this type of content interesting, though I try, but I do believe my content is intellectually honest and informative, though not authoritative.

[@brainbandaid5802]

I'm a grad student of social work and I feel like all of my peers and I could really use this video. May I share it with my peers? I think too often they find a piece of literature in a data base and assume it must be true.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you, please feel free to share it as you like!

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Use good priors people, and know basic statistics (which most academics don't)

[@veritasetcaritas]

Good priors are uncommon these days.

[@frankmeyer1473]

A few days ago World of Antiquity released “The Younger Dryas Comet Impact: An Investigation" here on KZbin. Around minute 47 Mark Boslough describes how Firestone, West et al were able to circumvent proper peer review in PNAS and got a paper published there in 2007.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I saw that video, it was excellent. I linked it in the description of this video.

[@nuhuhbruhbruh]

still at 15:00 but I feel like you're being veeery charitative with those passages 😅 some of those phrases I have never seen in any context that didn't evoke massive red flags (okay, I see you did dial it up a bit just shortly after that point, hah)

[@veritasetcaritas]

I had to show I was approaching the article and journal in good faith.

[@iamaunicorn1232]

Anyone else find it kinda funny that the answer to "how do you know if your sources are trustworthy?" is to research your own research? It's logical when laid out and this is an excellent guide on how to do it in the current system but when stated plainly I find it amusing. First, you have to do your research. Then, you have to research that research.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Very true. This is why my own videos take so long to create. I spend weeks or even months in research to double check my facts and sources. Even then I'm sure I don't catch everything.

[@notsojharedtroll23]

That is why research in itself is considered a job

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@notsojharedtroll23 yes. This is also why most history KZbinrs don't do proper research; it's difficult, time consuming, and requires specific knowledge and skills.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@Gustav_Kuriga of course I'm not talking about history in this video, so what? I just explained why most history KZbinrs don't do good research; it's time consuming and hard.

[@swirvinbirds1971]

The video people need. I've had this argument with Dan on not all peer review being equal. He didn't take it very well. 😂 There is a crazy amount of pro-Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis papers being produced by the Comet Research Group that all cite each others works even when that work has been rejected for decades like Firestone 2007. They also claim over a thousand supporting papers when the vast bulk is produced by their own group or claiming support from papers that don't actually support their hypothesis. People need to look at who is behind this group. They have a long history of irreproducible data and includes photo manipulation (their latest Abu Hureyra paper) to outright fraud.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you for your support! I'll be making videos on Dan specifically later this year. I've noticed he's a fan of peer review when it suits him.

[@AncientPuzzles]

Great job, putting that together was surely a lot of work. The DeDunker knows about the fake journal, but he basically thinks it's justified and compares the situation with Clovis First. He claims there are lots of similarities between Clovis First and the YDIH, but I already told him that those are just superficial similarities. When the evidence presented is not good enough, it is expected to see other scientists pointing out the flaws, and even assuming some of the critics were occasionally rude, that's not enough to make the comparison. As usual, he has been trying to forge a narrative for his audience (a false one), something he knows most will support without looking into it. And he will continue to ignore or misrepresent whatever he needs to for his content.

[@lyallfurphy]

Appreciate you making this genre of videos

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you. As an information professional I think media literacy generally and information literacy in particular are very important.

[@BewegteBilderrahmen]

I would not really call it intellectual honesty when dan describes his opinion as a hypothesis, and his portrayal of the term pseudo-archaeology makes it seems much more like pseudo-code (where computer code is written in an understandable way but generally not really executable by computers without being adapted) than pseudo-science (where intellectual honesty is cast aside by dismissing often overwhelming amounts of evidence in favour of alternative hypotheses). Dan is also dismissing most of archaeology, and while admitting to do so is verbally honest it's intellectually dishonest.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I was aiming to be as charitable to Dan as possible. I do think it's intellectually honest of him to say that what he does is pseudo-archaeology, and he does explicitly call himself a pseudo-scientist, which is remarkable given both of these words have very negative connotations. The "pseudo" in both cases doesn't have the same connotation as in "pseudo-code", but a negative connotation of "fake", or "false imitation of something". I do think he engages in intellectual dishonesty, but that's a topic for a later video.

[@eriness]

Not sure if this is rude but your voice makes you sound much younger than Dan looks! I was surprised to hear you were older than him. Also, great video, thanks!!

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you! Yeah it's definitely my voice, it's a tenor pitch so it's higher than the male average, making me sound more youthful I guess. If you're wondering about the face behind the voice, this is an advertisement from the Taiwan company I work for, using a photo of me from June 2024. static.accupass.com/eventbanner/2501070625502046802700.jpg

[@halflifeger4179]

Can you make a “good History KZbin channel“ list sometime?

[@veritasetcaritas]

I already have a series of videos in which I interview good history KZbinrs about their research practices.

[@AncientPuzzles]

Also, the DNA video you mentioned deserves a separate comment. I'm not going to post the link here, but I uploaded a 42 min video covering that retraction. Not only the retraction was a lie from beginning to end...even the original video was released as a lie. He knows I exposed his fraud, but acts like it never happened, probably hoping his viewers never know about that, or simply don't care.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I've noticed he stops responding to corrections when he can't find an angle to try and address them.

[@AncientPuzzles]

@veritasetcaritas yeah, he responded to part of Dr. Miano's video, but ignored most of it. He doesn't want to admit he even misrepresented Hancock to score points.

[@thesecretthirdthing]

Thank you.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thanks!

[@godalien3223]

This is a very good video, and a necessary one. good work 👍 People can be just as prone to accepting "science" as others are to reject properly done science One small very small thing i noticed was you confusing "titled" and "entitled" those are two different words. no big deal 👍

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you for your support! The word "entitled" as a verb has been used since the fourteenth century to mean "to give a title to a something, such as a book", so that's actually the original meaning, and it's still current. The other use of "entitled", as an adjective, is more recent. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitle

[@godalien3223]

@veritasetcaritas we learn every day 😂😂😂

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@godalien3223 I've been an English teacher for a long time. :)

[@AbdulHannanAbdulMatheen]

👏🙂 Very informative

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you!

[@duanemansel5704]

Peer review is like cops policing cops, sometimes the good old boys club just looks the other way.

[@JasterViewer]

What is your opinion on things like NoFap and anti-pornography sentiment from both a religious and scientific perspective?

[@CalvinistfemboyPatata89]

great video Can we rely on scientific studies that deal with controversial topics in such an oppressive context as capitalism or socialism? like, obviously there are some topics that would discredit certain ideas that are fundamental to the status quo of a society

[@veritasetcaritas]

I would say that it depends on the degree of independence the studies have from the oppressive systems. Clearly excellent research can be done under either capitalism or socialism, as the twentieth century demonstrates, but there are absolutely economic and ideological constraints in both cases.

[@Rocklahaulle]

great video 👍

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you!

[@Wallyworld30]

I would have more respect for Dan Richards if he was wrong due to personal biases but I fear it's more to do with the financial incentive to purposely be wrong and support Graham/Uncharted X uncritically so Graham continues to retweet his tweets and videos.

[@veritasetcaritas]

My view of him has fallen considerably since he started attacking Flint Dibble.

[@notnotkavi]

Seems bad that this is now happening for something as mundane as the Younger Dryas Impact dispute. What hope do we have on more impactful issues like climate change

[@veritasetcaritas]

And there are plenty of predatory journals spreading false information on climate change. www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2018/jan/24/murky-world-of-science-journals-a-new-frontier-for-climate-deniers

[@CristalianaIvor]

What do they even have to gain from lying about this 😭

[@DeadEndFrog]

Thanks for the great video! Sub!

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you!

[@Deafulttressady]

I’d propose to you given the chance 😍

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thanks, I'm actually married!

[@briansinger5258]

Simple Answer: after around 1960.

[@soaringbumnm8374]

Subbed by minute 4

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thanks!

[@MrSporkster]

Nice catch! Climate denialists are getting sneakier. 👀

[@veritasetcaritas]

There are quite a few predatory journals out there denying AGW.

[@bcddd214]

Statistics were banned from Science in the 1600s.thats the issue. Nullius in verba. Also, Aliis exterendum

[@tim31415]

You honestly don't think there are conspiracies to suppress new ideas? Harlen Bretz would disagree with you.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I mentioned specifically in the video that it CAN happen. But overwhelmingly, it does not. Bretz would not disagree since he did not experience any conspiracy to suppress a new idea. Although he met institutional resistance, his view was published and the issue was discussed publicly for years. No one tried to prevent Bretz publicizing his view, and his main problem was collecting enough evidence to systematize his case.

[@swirvinbirds1971]

I think Bretz would be more upset with these people using his work and name to support their agenda. Bretz's work in no way supports their theory yet they use his name as a shield against criticism. Bretz's Spokane flood was even older than the Missoula flood being closer to 200,000 years old in his opinion. The end of his work was looking for volcanoes in British Columbia as the source. Subglacial volcanism. His work never had supported the Comet Impact Hypothesis and in fact his work counters the hypothesis.

[@EricDMMiller]

Always distrust all of them all of the time.

[@KnightspaceORG]

To a certain degree, and every scientist will tell you that. But I assume you don't mean what researchers understand about science.