Not all scientific studies are created equal - David H. Schwartz 

Who is funding the research? This is important too.

Search for sci-hub

This is a more common problem on high schools who are conducting research studies since they are less likely to pay money and that they usually lack resources and knowledge (unless they search the internet that deep).

@@mrs.hendrysyoutubechannel2355 honestly i just look at that. a lot of ppl are saying meat doesnt contribute much to greenhouse gases, but those studies and their spokespersons have ties to the meat industry

Which is why some turns to privacy, such as scihub, for access to these scientific journals

No it’s not. I bet you feel pretty smart though.

I doubt it, you don't need to understand the contents, just that the experiment/study seems legit. That there is little to no bias in the way it is handled , everybody can see that after seeing this video.

People simply don't understand the logic behind correlation and controlled experiment, so they continue using the wrong intuition that correlation is some kind of causation, regardless of how much it's being refuted. I completed an internet course in Udacity named Statistics, and I liked how they really hammered it down, asking in excercise problem whether the setup could be used to prove causal relationship, out of 90% of the time, the answer was no, even though many times you are tempted to answer yes.

It isn't that hard with a good example.

Brandan09997 You could be, but my point would still stand. :)

Brandan09997 Vsauce: " how many legs does a goat have if you call its tail a leg? 4. Just because you think its tail is a leg, doesn't make it a leg" Abraham Lincoln

***** Someone sold Abe some bad weed. Or Vsauce is bad at quoting.

***** The irony..

XxOTheEpicCrewOxX oh the misunderstanding.

i dont believe your comment

jayrush01 It was a command :-)

jayrush01 hahahahaha :D Dude.

+Mike Lazarus why?

Obey Silence Because I said so, obviously ... :-)

Or is it?

Because Ted is good already =))

it just have to be good

Conflicts of interest and selection bias make the entire study suspect. If the authors make the correlation->causation fallacy in the conclusion, then only that part of the conclusion should be considered suspect. If a Facebook meme or a news article says anything related to science, it should be considered bullshit until after reading the actual study. (Except if the news article is a verbatim copy of a press release from the paper's authors at a reputable institution. Then it's merely suspect.)

Magnus Webb A lot of the holistic websites that people share on Facebook don't even link to the study they talk about or even give the name. It's always aggravating.

William Sartorio I think he already mentioned that just saying

No. Not equal. Not even close. The quality of the study & the strength of its results matter. You should NOT dismiss a study simply because you’re suspicious of its sources of funding. Studies are expensive, they get funding from wherever it might be available. It is simple-minded to dismiss results simply because the money came from “big oil”, “big pharma” or “giant, multinational corporations”.

there is now

the study that already proven empirically.

I study social sciences..

***** Social sciences aren't actually sciences.

Semyon Galtsev And why are you telling me this?

***** Sorry, I thought you were defending your major.

Semyon Galtsev I was trying to make Drudenfusz feel bad by appearing as somebody who has made a choice to study social sciences. It is easy to criticize ideas or numbers but not people. I agree on what is said at this video, but I don't think that what I study is crap. Even if it's not a field of science.

For example, if someone did a study that proved that cities with more churches have more violent crimes committed in them per year, this would be a correlation. However, one does not necessarily cause the other and the true cause for both may be a third factor like population size.

I don't know much about this myself, but surely you shouldn't just ignore them, rather they should be considered with wider research

Jordan Edmondson In most cases, they're nothing but simple correlations of two unrelated or only loosely related variables, with one always being made to look like the cause of the other. Here are a couple of examples that come to mind immediately. People who drink fizzy drinks are more likely to be depressed and those who drink diet fizzy drinks are even more likely to be depressed. Now that has nothing to do with the contents of the drinks. Those who drink fizzy (sugary) drinks are more likely to be overweight and disappointed with their body shape, leading to depression. Those who drink the diet variety are more likely to have become so overweight and depressed that they're hoping that switching to the diet drink will magically make them thin. And, when that doesn't work, they get more depressed. The older the parent that conceives a child, the more likely the child is to suffer from an autism spectrum disorder. Why? The child doesn't have autism because of the parent's age. The parent probably already had an autism spectrum disorder (perhaps a mild one), which made it more difficult for them to connect with people, resulting in them meeting their partner at an older age. Then, when they had a child, the genes that caused autism in them were passed on to the child. Chances are that both parents carried genes that caused autism, which increased the chance of their child being autistic. So, yes. You should consider these so-called studies alongside wider research or, simply, more logical reasoning. Sadly, that's not how they're reported. Because correct reasoning and explanation would not make great attention-grabbing headlines.

So you do not believe that falling off Buildings is deadly? Because to my knowledge we never did a RCT by throwing people off buildings to check this. All we got is a few milennia of Epdimiological Studies. EM Studies are reliable with enough repitition/amount of data.

everyone should be avoiding diet sweeteners...and pop in general...There's not a single study in man kind that says otherwise.

If u cant avoid it make it moderate. too much of everything is bad! that's the golden rule :)

***** The "artificial lab created chemicals added to other chemicals" part shows how panicked and unreasonable you are. Everything is chemicals and the Earth is one big lab. Use your brain instead of overhyped no-no rules.

***** what are your alternatives?? no GMO's no additives?? do you think we manage to feed the exploding population that way?? how long it would take to grow crops naturally?? how many labors it would take?? analyse all this questions!!

what do u mean by 'abundant water and food' ? that's very misleading. why do u think third world countries are starving ?? abundant water and food is everywhere . right!!

They're working on these chips that allow you to put cells of any type containing your own DNA so you can test things on something that has the exact same DNA as you. They should be available to the public in a couple years or less.