This outdated system has put science in a position of bias. And hubris is preventing the scientific method from being corrected. the problem you’ve outlined is standing in the way of progress. Thank you Peter for your continued competent contribution to enlightening the layman to how science is failing society. Bad science can inflicted an enormous amount of suffering on humanity, we need scientists like you, now more than ever.

Thank you for your work. The rule of law is powerful. Publically fund legal action against the journals

Group think is even worse in politics.

These are really interesting videos.. please keep them coming.

Great video..we the unwoke love your science!!

The best way to prevent group think “toxicity” is to gourge on a diet of “suspension of belief” garnished with copious lashings of objectivity. Two detractors to such a diet are; 1. Ignorance … in whatever shape it might take, and 2. Vested interest. Ignorance is multidimensional. Vested interest is vested interest. To me facts are facts. Facts are those things which can be repeatedly proven beyond any doubt, and repeatedly withstand any kind of challenge. My diet should overcome that and more.

Wow, you throw out a challenge on that one peter lol As one that does not regularly walk the halls of our scientific monasteries or participate in regular ritual ceremony I can only but offer some fringe thoughts. I will have to think that over and do a follow up post. I will make it a brief a review of the concept of "Group Think" with reference to the underlying Psychology and Philosophy. Being some 20 years since my studies on the human condition it may take a moment before I get back on this one. [To be cont] In my initial assessment I felt that it would be difficult to make a brief summary in less than 20 or 30 thousand words, so the following doesn't formulate a full statement. Unfortunately YT doesn't allow for essays of that size. Maybe it would be better to say nothing, but I will have a shot at it. YT doesn't allow for links or referencing, but I have included some names and general references to follow up on. > "What would be the best way to prevent Groupthink in science" The concept of Groupthink is well discussed and outlined but unfortunately also widely perverted out of cooperate or self interested goals. > Not that I am a fan of Wikipedia it does offer a reasonable "Overview" of groupthink. The main takeaway from this overview is the reference to the underlying human psychology and sociology. Group think is a subcategory of a concept popularly referred to as the "Overmind". This Concept of Overmind is most commonly found in historical literature based in Theology, Spirituality and Metaphysics so most references will point in the direction of modern (sometimes perverted [Science fiction]) spiritual references to this. Look deeper as this is well described in literature on Sociology. The concept of overmind essentially points to an overlaying abstract mind or consciousness that functions independently from the group that created it. This is where it becomes difficult as it is an excretion of our underlying subjective nature that is heavily based in natural behaviours (think pavlov's dog) as well as learned behaviours that support our mechanisms of fight, fright or flight as well as introducing concepts of human belief. The subjective nature of man. > If we take the time to study some of the fundamentals in psychology, sociology with some particular attention to cognitive psychology and especially with regards to human perception we can see how easily this abstract concept of overmind or group think emerges. In essence it emerges out of our fundamental subjective survival mechanisms where we are able act quickly to avoid potential danger whether that danger exist in reality or not. Dr Robert Bolton offers many good explanations around the underlying individual and social psychology on this in "People Skills" and Stephen Pinker offers some exceptional explanations on perception in "How the Mind Works". > The danger in this is that most people will fail to recognize this "abstract" overmind as it is not tangible, yet it can have a very real impact upon individual and group thinking. We become guided by an abstract idea or belief that we unwittingly delegate human like attributes to while renouncing the existence of this abstraction in the first place. Even worse, our subjective nature will hold steadfast to this abstraction in times of elevated emotion. Our survival mechanisms quietly kick in as we cling to the subjective notion that we natively rely upon for our daily protection, no matter how flawed it may be. Unfortunately this awareness of the overmind, groupthink and the other aspects of the human condition both as an individual and as a group is not well defined or explained in our education system or else where. And to be honest back when i was a young person I may not have "Got it" anyway. > A very real example of this just occurred in Australia were many believed in an overwhelming consensus that "most" Australian wanted a voice to parliament. This thought hovers around over the group in a feedback loop returning from the invisible abstract each time reinforcing the idea "Some one else new supports this". It becomes something of an echo chamber where we don't recognise our own words coming back to us. > Now this idea of an overmind (or group think) is not inherently a good or bad thing as it is part of the natural foundation of all groups be it national, small community, subcultural cult, workplace or even family group. It forms a kind of unspoken charter of faith and belief within that group. Being informal it does have an inherent way of going astray as it has no control mechanism. This is why we create formal charters such as religious charters of faith, national charters such as constitutions, business charters of workplace behaviour, and even within our family. But the charter alone is insufficient as we do need to have check points to see how well we are keeping to that charter. It's also worth noting that it needs to be a beneficial and constructive charter as opposed to a destructive charter. > The "Discipline" of science takes on a greater need for these checks as the discipline requires (as best that we humanly can) an objective statement of the truth. This is far from an easy task when all of our native human instincts rely upon the subjective system of beliefs for survival. It is not easy to remove those rose coloured glasses as those subjective realities define who we are to our self both singularly and as part of a group. > At the surface the word "Discipline" precedes words such as Science, Physics, Psychology etc. The word discipline by it's very definition is removed from the realm of natural and subjective nature and point's to a higher state of the human condition in which we are capable making choices that override those instinctive tendencies. We can set in place a charter of discipline as an organisation, but the concept of discipline really needs to begin at an underlying level from within the self. This is more within the realm of personal responsibility as well the foundational constructs of the society. Both the self and the group need to be agreeable on that foundational charter which unfortunately is dysfunctional in Australia and the world more broadly. > So, having a sound formal charter along with truth checks for the discipline of science is important and requires careful consideration in it's construction, but is also limited by the natural tendencies of the people within that organisation. A system of truth tests would need to pay consideration to those natural tendencies and have mechanisms to be able to deal with the human subjective, which is likely not an easy task. No doubt someone can come up with a better mechanism for the science disciplines, but I personally think the real issue exist more deeply at the personal and social construct level. > Watering the leaves of the tree may help it look shiny, but it's the roots of the tree that need the most tending to keep a strong, heathy foundation for the limbs and leaves > So I think it is doubtful that we can "prevent" groupthink in science and it may be more practical to investigate the mechanisms available to "guide" that groupthink in a constructive way under the heading of "Discipline". Axle 2023

Well said

Good work

I love your videos. Much respect from Alaska. Do you think we should undo the policy of peer review in favor of something else?

@reefrebels

6 ай бұрын

Very good question. Peer review is Ok as a first pass. But if important decisions are to based on some piece of science, a far more rigorous review process is needed.