Yoel and Mickey welcome Northeastern University research scientist and science critic James Heathers to their show. Yoel, Mickey, and James discuss science reform and the need for robust science criticism. Why is it so hard for some (older) scientists to admit their mistakes? Do science critics feel empathy for the scholars they criticize? Is there a danger of science criticism going too far, even over-correcting? What exactly is Yoel drinking this episode?
Bonus: James discusses his fascinating research on people who can control their goosebumps.
Bonus Bonus: Yoel and Mickey submit to James's break-music request.
- Molson Canadian | Premium Lager
- Big Cranky - Stony Creek BreweryStony Creek Brewery
- Retraction Watch – Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process
- Meet the ‘data thugs’ out to expose shoddy and questionable research | Science | AAAS
- Why We Find And Expose Bad Science – Medium — Why We Find And Expose Bad Science (It isn’t because we’re mean.)
- Here’s How Cornell Scientist Brian Wansink Turned Shoddy Data Into Viral Studies About How We Eat -- BuzzFeed — Brian Wansink won fame, funding, and influence for his science-backed advice on healthy eating. Now, emails show how the Cornell professor and his colleagues have hacked and massaged low-quality data into headline-friendly studies to “go virally big time.”
- The voluntary control of piloerection [PeerJ]
- The People Who Can Control Their Goose Bumps - The Atlantic — Everyone cannot do it. But Palejko is not alone, either. He is among dozens of people that James Heathers, a postdoctoral researcher at Northeastern University, identified during and after a recent study on the phenomenon. Heathers posted a preprint—which has not yet been peer reviewed—describing 32 people who can control their goose bumps, and he’s been contacted by several others since. Many of them, like Palejko, had thought this ability was perfectly ordinary for most of their lives. Palejko told me his brother can do it, too.
- Creating goosebumps at will may be more interesting than it sounds | Ars Technica