Is Most Published Research Wrong?

  visningar 2,612,208

Veritasium

4 år sedan

Mounting evidence suggests a lot of published research is false.
Check out Audible: bit.ly/AudibleVe
Support Veritasium on Patreon: bit.ly/VePatreon
Patreon supporters:
Bryan Baker, Donal Botkin, Tony Fadell, Jason Buster, Saeed Alghamdi
More information on this topic: wke.lt/w/s/z0wmO
The Preregistration Challenge: cos.io/prereg/
Resources used in the making of this video:
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False:
journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Trouble at the Lab:
www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble
Science isn't broken:
fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/#part1
Visual effects by Gustavo Rosa

Kommentarer
Bunsen The Burner
Bunsen The Burner 3 timmar sedan
*It all started when a man called ROBERT MAXWELL started a model for monetizing scientific journals*
Big Dogo
Big Dogo 2 dagar sedan
Just wanted you all to know that the pentaquark, since 2019, is considered a real thing again.
SafetyThird
SafetyThird 3 dagar sedan
Great video
Brandon Montez
Brandon Montez 3 dagar sedan
Interesting I'm studying this in school and now it appears in my recommended. Coincidence? Definitely not.
Liam the Lit Lord
Liam the Lit Lord 4 dagar sedan
Conclusion: Science is often wrong, but its the best we've got. Kind of like Democracy...
harry david green
harry david green 6 dagar sedan
One massive assumption here is that p
Reuben Stern
Reuben Stern 6 dagar sedan
Science is broken. It's a perfectly good way of finding and improving pragmatic solutions... yet people ignore it's fundamental principles and it just turns into stupid.... not gonna rant.
Zothaqqua
Zothaqqua 7 dagar sedan
This video accurately presents the “deductive” scientific method as described by Tom Weller in his excellent textbook, “Science Made Stupid”.
Ishari
Ishari 7 dagar sedan
*Other commenters:* Commenting on the state of science, peer review, etc *Me:* PEE-HACKING
Unconscious Ponderer
Unconscious Ponderer 8 dagar sedan
Global warming?
lopeepso livi
lopeepso livi 8 dagar sedan
For people freaking out in the comments: we don't need to change the scientific method, we need to change the publication strategies that incentive scientific behavior.
James E
James E 9 dagar sedan
"Science is more reliable than any other way of knowing" Baloney. Only in certain narrow areas.
Bryan Reed
Bryan Reed 11 dagar sedan
P-hacking is just the start of it. It could be reduced a great deal if scientists had better education in statistics and data analysis. Amazingly, very few do. Very few understand the assumptions that go into calculating a p value, or know what a chi-square statistic is, or understand that not all distributions are Gaussian so your p-value may be a massive underestimate, or understand the role of correlations, etc. But that wouldn't eliminate the many other problems that come, at least in part, from journals' overwhelming profit motive and from researchers' incessant pressure to publish, no matter what. As others have said, you get the behavior you incentivize. I've personally observed all of the following: -Guest authorships for people who had little or nothing to do with the research (I suspect a majority of papers have this in some fields) -Scientists who were instrumental in designing/conceiving the experiment getting cut out so that the remaining authors can get larger shares of the credit (this has been done to me and to many of my colleagues many, many times; these days, I expect it.) -Big-name authors being able to push an article through peer review despite an unambiguous rejection by a reviewer or even multiple reviewers (again, on multiple occasions; the problem seems to be worse with bigger-name journals) -High-quality, well-supported research results being considered unpublishable just because a journal editor doesn't think it's going to sell a lot of subscriptions (this is normal; it happens to probably more than half of journal submissions; remember that a journal's job is not to promote science but to make money) -Papers getting published in respectable journals with such absurdly obvious basic flaws that an undergrad should be able to immediately see why they're bogus (we're talking perpetual motion type stuff; just ridiculously silly ideas) -Big-name professors attaching themselves to already-successful projects and then taking credit for them, using their platform to convince the world that they invented the thing when they don't really even know how it works -Scientific conferences at vacation resorts where everyone is an invited speaker but no one has their fees covered, i.e. just blatantly selling invited speakerships to bogus conferences in league with resorts (and plenty of scientists willing to pay to play that game, using taxpayer money) All this in a world where, at least for technical articles, Wikipedia is a more reliable source than Science or Nature. Getting published in a big-name journal means that it's flashy, not that it's likely to be true. In a world with millions of scientists, the incentive structure practically guarantees this behavior. The system is deeply, deeply flawed. And yet it still seems to kind of work. On the whole, the scientific enterprise shambles towards the truth, 100 steps forward, 99 steps back. Because even in the midst of all this I've met plenty of extremely intelligent, dedicated, rational, hard-working scientists who just want to get at the truth whatever it is. On another note, I miss conferences...can we be done with this pandemic already?
StriveMan
StriveMan 12 dagar sedan
Insanity. So much lies in Academia and Corporate Science. It's called Scientism. A religion essentially and corporate scam.
Jason Destruc
Jason Destruc 13 dagar sedan
Almost all research is biased. Any scientific peer-reviewed study you look at is created to self-servingly boost careers, sell products, or to push an agenda. That's right, science is corrupt, just like everything else humans do. It is the reason we are not a Scientocracy or a Technocracy. There are some exceptions, such as a company doing research for it's own private use, that is less likely to be skewed by bias.
Jim Foit
Jim Foit 13 dagar sedan
Click bait. Show me a single chemical synthesis paper with an alpha or beta error. Doubtful. You should have made it more apparent that it involves statistics and not using statistics correctly. PhD’s have too little training in statistics. I love ur channel, but in this one you botched it. Please don’t feel badly; everyone else has, too. Now get out there in please make me more of your incredible videos. You are a breath of fresh air. And, if I could give you an award, it would be for being one of the best human beings alive today. If you want an idea for another video, interview Michael Dayah (spelling) about his dynamic periodic table.
Deyvson Moutinho Caliman
Deyvson Moutinho Caliman 14 dagar sedan
In many occasions from the headline I already know the study is false and was made to pander to sensibilities. Many things are just false and illogical by the simple fact that wishful thinking is written all over it.
ITS
ITS 15 dagar sedan
"Let's assume that 10% of them reflect true relationships and the rest are false." Why would we assume that? I'm not saying he's wrong, but how did he come up with those numbers- research, just an example, or a shot in the dark? And if it was research, can we trust it?
DUSA anna
DUSA anna 17 dagar sedan
This confirm my feeling about research, be it in cosmology, quantum mechanic, relativity or medecine.There is unfortunately such a misunderstanding ofstatistic and statiscal results or manipulation of statistical results (vanitas vanitatum ed omnia vanitas and greed) that the mainstream public including scientists gobble everything. See the way STATINS sellers and promoters used their initial studies "36 per cent less deads from cardiovascular events" because the death rate move from 2 per cent to 2.72 per cent in their double-blind experiments (.when all life-biology researchers can show everybody how cholesterol, a building bloc of many proteins-enzymes is a major necessity for human life) They had better to find a better real drug really dissolving harmlessly the arterial plaques instead of reducing the stock of cholesterol on board of a "compensating" regulated by life (so misunderstood as so complicated), body..
sz Tz
sz Tz 20 dagar sedan
Thanks for discussing this, I have always thought this might be the case.
Mattias Sigurdsson
Mattias Sigurdsson 20 dagar sedan
I believe that the great danger with science as we know it, is that it tends to make us throw away our intuition, believing that we can trust our test results blindly. As we can see we can´t... By the end of the day we often depend on our intuition for making good decision, as scary as it may seem. Great vid!
BigFoot Too
BigFoot Too 21 dag sedan
What? Nevermind, I've got to go peee
EveryTimeV2
EveryTimeV2 22 dagar sedan
The solution to that is you repeat the tests. If you keep getting unlikely confirmations then a pattern can seem more significant - but can it ever be proven? Before you discount all correlation though, ask this. If correlation doesn't imply causation, what does?
EveryTimeV2
EveryTimeV2 22 dagar sedan
Roll the dice.
Alonso Vm
Alonso Vm 23 dagar sedan
everyone has to eat .
Ajwad Jilal
Ajwad Jilal 27 dagar sedan
Hhkqnf
eXWoLL
eXWoLL 27 dagar sedan
I think I remember about the editor of an important scientific magazine stating that most of the research they published was probably fake and/or biased.
Varsha Premarajan
Varsha Premarajan 28 dagar sedan
Now I hv doubts abt alot of things...thanks
dave DD
dave DD 28 dagar sedan
Peer reviews have become buddy reviews so everyone gets published.
Brian Fedirko
Brian Fedirko 29 dagar sedan
it's not seeing the future, it's people who see one erotic pic and then yearn for more.
Diwakar Koirala
Diwakar Koirala 29 dagar sedan
Are all the published research wrong? Lancet: Hold my anti-vaccination paper which is still causing havoc right now.
Mohsen Abbasi
Mohsen Abbasi Månad sedan
My Co-Worker send a paper for a review to a reviewer at another Uni and that criminal fake one sent him the correction request with "You should add there references to accept it" and the references were ALL papers on that criminal guy just to get advantage. And the worst thing is: the references have nothing to do with the topic of the paper!
Hans Hägerstöm
Hans Hägerstöm Månad sedan
I am a fan of veritasium. But please cut out the background music. To me it's very annoying.
rabbithole miner
rabbithole miner Månad sedan
The reason for researchers intentionally creating false positives is because they are highly funded by either pharma or food companies. It makes sense because these companies treat this as a business strategy to backup their products with science (which is pseudoscience)
Ekrem Duzen
Ekrem Duzen Månad sedan
I admire your work and commitment; what you are achieving is beyond anything similar in your track. I have one request: The background music in your videos is brain-melting. That background music makes it impossible to concentrate on the topic even if I try hard to concentrate on your voice. I am sure you are informed about such backfiring effects. Please do remove background music and I guarantee you that you will win more committed followers. I am one prospective one. Thanks a billion for your extraordinary endeavor, anyway.
Kimon Froussios
Kimon Froussios Månad sedan
We do need to change how we publish and fund and incentivize science. The hunt for originality is hurting science. The incentives system is obsessed with staking claims on new territory. Funders, editors, employers all care about finding the next glorious breakthrough, with no regards to how many false positives it costs them to get there.
Kimon Froussios
Kimon Froussios Månad sedan
Brilliant conclusion. If scientists, who know what they are doing and understand the limitations and biases still get it wrong more often than we'd like, the people who don't actually know what they're talking about (even if they think they do) and are not aware of the biases (or think they are above them) get it wrong much more often. Considering the public (and many leaders) seem inclined to follow the latter instead of the former, humanity is circling the drain.
Valter Sanches
Valter Sanches Månad sedan
Scientific journals are a hellhole
Roman Romero
Roman Romero Månad sedan
never believe statistics that you didn't fake yourself 😉
Freak80MC
Freak80MC Månad sedan
About all these stupid climate change comments (which isn't even the same thing as what he talked about, since these unreproducible studies don't have hundreds of thousands of data points collected about them all the time everywhere in the world, which makes climate change closer to basics physics, that anyone can observe patterns and study it, unlike these studies that are so specific to the one thing they studied, so never get reproduced) It seems like most of the commenters didn't take this video to be "we need to reproduce studies to get more sure about things". It seems like they have taken the video to mean "if science doesn't support my worldview, it's unreliable. If it does, I'm gonna use that as evidence for my opinions" And it's funny too how "a study on how most studies are false" is taken as complete fact to peddle their worldview... Almost exactly how people take most other studies too as well, like the thing about eating chocolate everyday to be healthier... Hmmmm. Basically, like always, humans only hear what they want to hear
Diego Rodriguez Nava
Diego Rodriguez Nava Månad sedan
5:54 P-hacking
Diego Rodriguez Nava
Diego Rodriguez Nava Månad sedan
At minute 3:36 why most published papers are wrong
Matt Erridge
Matt Erridge Månad sedan
I really enjoyed the publish report explaining how most published reports are false.
Steady Eddy
Steady Eddy Månad sedan
this guy doesnt understand P values, it is a comparison of the internal varience to the varience between two groups, you could have 10% varience but if the random varience is 15% then there is no significance
RedEyeRecords H
RedEyeRecords H Månad sedan
LoL. What was the P value for "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False?" Just sayin'
japrogramer
japrogramer Månad sedan
lol trolls are publishing white papers now
Owain d'Ylisse
Owain d'Ylisse Månad sedan
When I saw the title I knew it would be about statistics. Isn't it ironic that sciences that don't use statistics are often considered "not real science" while the sciences that rely on statistics are actually the ones that deal with a problem like this one.
Joar
Joar Månad sedan
Great vid. Amazing work man. Might be the most important video you have ever published. Very accessible too, as always of course . As a layman this is something I have purported to know for a long time but never really had a deep understanding of. Which is not to say that I have so now but ah you get what I'm trying to say.
Kavi Sugiharto Weber
Kavi Sugiharto Weber Månad sedan
Missed opportunity to put Derek's face as the example for the "erotic" category
Surabhi S. Nath
Surabhi S. Nath Månad sedan
Haha love that sarcasm 9:43 onwards
Dr. Mohamed
Dr. Mohamed Månad sedan
Is that only applicabe to only hypothesis or also experimental fact research?
Marc De Cock
Marc De Cock Månad sedan
There are people who claim we have free will (not 'if free will exists, this is where it could originate from')... and then look at quantum physics ans heisenberg's uncertainty principle and say: see: there it is. This is an example of how people state a 'belief' and then make reality match up to their belief, dropping all doubt in the process. I guess seeding reasonable doubt on the scientific process also helps a certain 'agenda' forward.
Roberto Parker
Roberto Parker Månad sedan
Self Referencing? Is Most Published Research Wrong? What about this one is it false? Very Goedelish!!!!
Zuber Bunglawala
Zuber Bunglawala Månad sedan
So, does this mean that : a - Scientists claiming climate change is real are just jumping on the bandwagon to make money or afraid to oppose the prevalent view because it will impact their career. AND/OR b - Scientists claiming climate change is false are just pandering to lobbies for financial gain/going against the science to get attention.
Adam W
Adam W Månad sedan
Probably a mix of both with A being the most wrong.
Ronnie Edwards
Ronnie Edwards Månad sedan
"science" is far and away more reliable than any other way of knowing that we have." Deductive reasoning is more reliable.
Freak80MC
Freak80MC Månad sedan
Isn't deductive reasoning what the ancient Greek philosophers used? And look how far that got them... Also you can't deductive reason at the scale of atoms because our logic breaks down, yet we know those scales to be true just to the fact that science has allowed us to engineer stuff that works at the microscopic level (like the transistors in the computers we are using to make these comments... in general science has created EVERYTHING that makes our modern world possible. So it must be pretty reliable...) It seems like most of the commenters didn't take this video to be "we need to reproduce studies to get more sure about things". It seems like they have taken the video to mean "if science doesn't support my worldview, it's unreliable. If it does, I'm gonna use that as evidence for my opinions"
Mark Routt
Mark Routt Månad sedan
This is something I am learning a lot on reading studies for food health science. So many variables are not put into account in the final findings. Reminds me of the phrase, "If you look for something, you will find it"
Warren Dourond
Warren Dourond Månad sedan
“Ooooh.... that’s why America is in a death spiral right now!” He says after a dip into the anti-science comment section.
Tyler Journeaux
Tyler Journeaux Månad sedan
I love this video, I've returned to it many times to refresh my memory on it. As invaluable a resource as this is, I can't help but want to push back on the one part of the video which was just a little too cute; the scientific method is not the most reliable way of knowing that we have. Indeed, it cannot be - we know some things with analytic incorrigibility, and others with existential indubitability, and still more with more mundane ways of knowing (and these, more often than any other, afford us the foundational assumptions on which any confidence in science itself must be based, for science is permeated with assumptions of this variety which fall strictly outside of its scope). What you should have said, I think, is that science is the most reliable method we have of forming beliefs about the natural world (in particular, natural nomological regularities). That isn't as cute, and it is a bit of a mouthful, but it has the advantage of not being false. What I would really like to see you explore, perhaps in the future, is whether some researchers approach science in such a way that they think P-hacking not merely expedient, but ethically imperative. If one is animated by a desire for the good more than for the true (perhaps especially if they are structural realists or constructive empiricists, or anti-realists of closely related varieties), and one regards science as a means to a promised land provided by a religious or political ideology (I'm thinking here especially, though not exclusively, of progressivism, critical theory, intersectionality, post-modern neo-Marxism, or any other name which is used for roughly the very same ideology), then it seems P-hacking your way to a conclusion in support of public policy positions you think morally imperative will be so highly motivated as to be inevitable, which may then, when unearthed, erode public confidence in science (as an institution more than as a method). For instance, consider Heather Douglas' argument in "Inductive Risk and Values in Science* " (you can find the PDF with a Scholar.Google search) and what that attitude might engender in the sciences if accepted by any significant fraction of practicing scientists.
Walter Zagieboylo
Walter Zagieboylo Månad sedan
Just the scientific method shows that all results are tentative. Rather than the slogan, "Science is True" more accurate is "Science is Tentative".
Flouride Productions
Flouride Productions Månad sedan
I got a passage on my SAT about this topic.
JAMJoeMarshall
JAMJoeMarshall Månad sedan
i hear some halo reach music is there somewhere
Good Things
Good Things Månad sedan
you forgot to mention lot of fake research (particularly in elite journals!) that may further support your conclusion. Refer to forbetterscience.com
Frank Wang
Frank Wang Månad sedan
The pentaquark example is not aging very well...
Mateo Nieves
Mateo Nieves Månad sedan
The future will not treat modern politicized climate science very well.. Gender and racial based studies will not fare well either.
Adam W
Adam W Månad sedan
Can we burn them instead of fossil fuels? It would be much better for the environment and society at large.
Alex Colegate
Alex Colegate Månad sedan
Veritasium summed up everything I learned from a year of collegiate statistics classes.
robbedontuesday
robbedontuesday Månad sedan
Anyone else seeing a tip of an iceberg?
robbedontuesday
robbedontuesday Månad sedan
Sorry, mate! Cannot follow you on this one. You SHOULD have been more cynical and less "corporate"... the final statement that "Scientific research is the best way", sounds a lot like "This democracy is the best we can have"... Too many interests in the middle, will claim at some point that the regular citizen becomes a controller to both, politicians of our flawed democracies, and scientists, on their biased researches... Like the one that has 3.5bn human beings in isolation since March.
MrSpecialized75
MrSpecialized75 Månad sedan
And media outlets both left and right can cherry pick science 'news' to suit their bias. Researchers get rewarded for their behaviour, and produce more.... and more.... and more.
Rex Rickson
Rex Rickson Månad sedan
anti-vaxxers be like:
Ricky Jaeger
Ricky Jaeger Månad sedan
that would be ironic, considering a lot of their claims are based on one particular scientific study that was thoroughly disconfirmed as bogus
Stuff I watch Sometimes
Stuff I watch Sometimes Månad sedan
Publishing in general seems to be the bane of modernity. Publishing requires editing- editing requires an Editor and therefore bias, however minimized (assuming an attempt was made) A forum platform is ideal..if you can overcome greed, pride, and deceit
icky wriggly hairy ugly spider from Natsuki's poem
icky wriggly hairy ugly spider from Natsuki's poem Månad sedan
it spread through the Bild? No offence but that's nothing I'd be majorly concerned about. Whether they're big or not (and they are), they don't have a good reputation
Makkura
Makkura Månad sedan
Think about something humanity hasn’t figured out yet, come up with a complex and convincing conspiracy theory, get it published. *Scientist*
Linas Vaičiukynas
Linas Vaičiukynas Månad sedan
The scientific method is not trying to find a proof, but trying to deny the hypothesis. If it can not be denied then the further experiments are being introduced to study it further...
stenbak88
stenbak88 Månad sedan
Absolutely yes but it’s only bc the internet allows morons to read and study science like actual scientists making the morons think they are right. The scientific method is basically perfect but we want new information all the time so people will read research papers as facts before they are peer reviewed let alone proven.
david
david Månad sedan
The accuracy also depends on the sample size - if you sampled 100% of the population it would be 100% accurate
Ethitlan
Ethitlan Månad sedan
What my Stats and Maths teacher said: "... lies, damn lies and statistics."
Plocký
Plocký Månad sedan
No but media likes to misinterpret data to fit their agenda. Like the recent covid spikes in Germany. They like to scream about rekord numbers but "forget" to tell you that they started to test way more people. Don't believe anything you see In articles anywhere. Always look at the data yourself.
pfote65
pfote65 Månad sedan
Not that it would make a big difference to your numbers ... but this one got you a new subscriber. well done sir .
Rico Belled
Rico Belled Månad sedan
"The strength of measured relationships WERE"? Come on man, the strength WAS!
Benkenobi8118
Benkenobi8118 Månad sedan
I actually was unaware that 0.5 was sufficient. Are they not aware of standard deviations? I ran into this when I was doing research in to the NHS. It gave me a table of about 100 different results, which I then plotted into a chart for deviation from the norm. As expected the values fit well with a normal distribution, which meant that the few that were considered to be 'statistically significant' in isolation were merely artefacts of the larger sample size. So I had to report that while there were some deviations that none of them were considered to be statistically significant. For my research, I only considered results that were at least 1 standard deviation out from where they were expected to be. I did find some statistically significant results in other places that were not England. This make me very sad. :(
Piotr Orkisz
Piotr Orkisz Månad sedan
Co-relation is not causation...
Shadow X
Shadow X Månad sedan
Bild is picture in German btw.
Johnny Oskarsson
Johnny Oskarsson Månad sedan
Thumbs up. And also, because Europe is mensioned I can't hold myself from stating this: Making this video living particularly in one of the Scandinavian countries would result in social solitary confinement. The ministry of statistics in this particular country constantly draws big conclussions from very small datasets to justify its douptful political paths
Tyler Wachal
Tyler Wachal Månad sedan
Lies, damned lies and statistics. Statistics is not science. This video should be part of every mandatory educational curriculum. Excellent video!
sugershakify
sugershakify Månad sedan
"The science is in".... the one statement that killed the Climate Change narrative for me.
Adam W
Adam W Månad sedan
Shouldn't half of florida and the netherlands be underwater by now. Or if you go by the climate alarmists from the 1970's we should be in another ice age by now 🙄
Lilo Whitney
Lilo Whitney Månad sedan
This is a very useful and important video for anyone who's familiar with the world of science and academia. Unfortunately, it's also very dangerous for people who are scientifically illterate. Anti-Vaxx for example are going to take it as proof that they can safely dismiss experts and science.
SimoWilliams
SimoWilliams Månad sedan
UNEXPECTED HYPOTHESYS
Makhar Unpic
Makhar Unpic Månad sedan
In all honesty, much of the research ecosystem is rotten. Publishers try to hold on to their ancient business model in the age of internet, in which in all honesty, they're not needed anymore. At least not in their current form
Porcupine
Porcupine Månad sedan
Here are some keywords you can search to demonstrate why what most of what he's saying doesn't matter: Peer review, research ethics, institutional review board, journal reputation, effect sizes (not p values), bonferroni correction, meta-analysis and funnel plots. Meta-analysis followed by effect size are the most important in my professional opinion. Please, trust a professor over a SVfrom video.
Adamast
Adamast Månad sedan
No! Trust this professor, rather than that professor.
OldGamerMusic
OldGamerMusic Månad sedan
Evolution theory is wrong. Care to cover that subject ?
Ricky Jaeger
Ricky Jaeger Månad sedan
"Hey instead of talking about what _you_ want to talk about, why don't you talk about what _I_ want to talk about??" ~ a little bitch whiner
Légion Le schyzophrène
Légion Le schyzophrène Månad sedan
@OldGamerMusic Even if I did, that wouldn't change the fact that evolution is a theory.
OldGamerMusic
OldGamerMusic Månad sedan
@Légion Le schyzophrène that's because you never question fundamental facts about your religion.
Légion Le schyzophrène
Légion Le schyzophrène Månad sedan
It would makes a nice april's fool
Tivis7
Tivis7 Månad sedan
We just got a letter, we just got a letter, we just got a letter... Wonder who's research it's from?
VeliVural Uslu
VeliVural Uslu Månad sedan
1.3% of the people who watched, got it wrong,
Febews 48Percent
Febews 48Percent Månad sedan
00:10 that hurts my head to listen to.
Daniel Álvarez
Daniel Álvarez Månad sedan
No one knows because no one reads it!
DavidFMayerPhD
DavidFMayerPhD Månad sedan
p=.05 is an absurd level of significance to choose. In most Physics experiments, p levels are millions of time smaller. Only in "Soft Sciences" is the p=.05 accepted.
Elena Thomas
Elena Thomas Månad sedan
Yeesh, title click baity much?
The Haseeb
The Haseeb Månad sedan
This is also a research,this video can be wrong to though.
Youssef wolf
Youssef wolf Månad sedan
what is the name of the song in the video ?
RadicalxEdward
RadicalxEdward Månad sedan
Just wait till all the bunk and contradictory science around covid comes out. Science has become WAYYYY over politicized and it’s only getting worse.
sbarad99
sbarad99 Månad sedan
He can write a research paper on papers published.
Nathan Squires
Nathan Squires Månad sedan
Great video. I was hoping for an ever so slightly bigger u turn at the end to give me more hope in the scientific community.
The Illusion of Truth
08:25
Veritasium
visningar 2,5mn
The Zipf Mystery
21:05
Vsauce
visningar 18mn
Lever 24 timmar i en svensk ubåt
23:10
Uppdrag: Mat
visningar 1mn
I'm a Mobile Game
1:07
TheOdd1sOut
visningar 4,8mn
My New Favorite Bad Movie
18:57
Drew Gooden
visningar 1,3mn
''ЖҰЛДЫЗ, СЕНІҢ ШЫН ТҮРІҢДІ БҮГІН КӨРДІМ!''
30:51
QosLike / ҚосЛайк / Косылайық
visningar 493tn
Is Success Luck or Hard Work?
12:04
Veritasium
visningar 2,4mn
Facebook Fraud
09:00
Veritasium
visningar 6mn
The Science of Thinking
12:10
Veritasium
visningar 3,4mn
Why do prime numbers make these spirals?
22:30
The Infinite Pattern That Never Repeats
21:12
My Video Went Viral. Here's Why
23:43
Veritasium
visningar 3,2mn
The Bayesian Trap
10:37
Veritasium
visningar 2,5mn
Lever 24 timmar i en svensk ubåt
23:10
Uppdrag: Mat
visningar 1mn
I'm a Mobile Game
1:07
TheOdd1sOut
visningar 4,8mn
My New Favorite Bad Movie
18:57
Drew Gooden
visningar 1,3mn
''ЖҰЛДЫЗ, СЕНІҢ ШЫН ТҮРІҢДІ БҮГІН КӨРДІМ!''
30:51
QosLike / ҚосЛайк / Косылайық
visningar 493tn
1 Hour To Escape A Prison Cell
14:31
JustDustin
visningar 1,5mn
Bert - Alla fuskar!
45:27
Berts Värld
visningar 35tn