An Atheist Asks: Professor Philip Moriarty (Physics)

We will be talking about (inter alia):
1) peer review in the sciences;
2) the fairly pervasive (and remarkably credulous) idea that a scientific argument can be shot down on the basis of doing a rudimentary keyword search, finding a single paper (or, indeed, handful of papers) that apparently supports a point of view, and using that as damning ‘evidence’. (If only research was as easy as that!);
3) tackling is this frustrating “social science isn’t a real academic subject” nonsense, and
4) the sexual dimorphism thing.

[Akerfeldtfan]

I haven't fully finished this, but I love the comments and ideas on peer review that you're bringing in. In case you're wondering, the British Medical Journal actually does a lot of what you're proposing. They require peer reviews to be signed and published alongside all published articles. It really helps with cleaning up the muck of bad reviews, and it also provides a great insight into the process for grad students and new scholars that may be intimidated by the process.

One barrier to the overall scientific validation process that I haven't seen come up yet is a discussion of how institutional pressures have made it harder and harder for us academics to monitor the quality of the work in our field. The publish or perish mentality (this was mentioned) encourages people to move as fast as possible, meaning we reduce our time doing reviews and reviewing the literature critically for our own work. That stuff isn't rewarded by our institution so it is a "waste" of time. As a result we have very little vested interest in actually reading articles beyond citing them for our publications, which doesn't really need much reading beyond the abstract if you're feeling lazy. Similarly, increasing teaching loads further divide our time and make it all but impossible to spent the time needed to fully engage in the literature. Overall, the diminished time that academics are able to spend reading and evaluating work seems to be driven by ever increasing institutional expectations that do not reward some of the most fundamental aspects of maintaining a strong scientific community-namely dedicating lots of time to reading and performing reviews.

[DuaneHarkness]

Dr. Moriarty's description of the peer review process illustrates one of the social aspects of the scientific process and its susceptibility to the subtle biases that exist in any human activity. Acknowledging there are social components to science does not undermine its ability to produce useful knowledge. Rather, it enables adjustments and improvements that will lead to better outcomes.

[Darkphantaria]

At 3:56 I Actualy said, "Holy Fuck." Out loud.

[MindForgedManacle]

Great video! One question I'd have for Dr. Moriarty is this: Given the generally poor research methodology online & the preference for mockery, how can we cut past the crap to make meaningful progress?

In particular, as mentioned, is the insistence on spending 5 minutes Googling for single, self-serving studies & throwing them around as if they were ended the debate & without analysis of the study's arguments and evidence. It's so prevalent that one almost wants to join in just to get a point in edgewise!

[DavidLandonCole]

As a baby social scientist, I just wanted to say I really enjoyed this. Thankyou both!

[conferencereport]

As both yourself and Moriarty point out, peer review has its problems, particularly with the short-termism engendered by Research Assessment Exercises and a too-rigid focus on 'publish or perish'. However, it's still a lot better than the appeal to popularity which is common on social media, especially Youtube. Approximations to the truth are not arrived at by simple democratic processes or the logic of the unregulated marketplace.

[aMulliganStew]

Whooo Hoooo!!! It's the *real* Dr. Phil!!!

[lilycage]

What an informative hangout. I learned a great deal. Thank you both!