Is Most Published Research Wrong?

My dude. Please go get yourself some education on how science works. I feel embarrassed for you. The reproducibility crisis is about the prevalence of false positive results in the scientific literature. This video is a good primer: [this video] A false positive is when a paper says "this works" when it actually doesn't, because of a statistical fluke in their sample. Even if citing the reproducibility crisis as an excuse to believe something that science has repeatedly found to be false isn't a really bad reason for belief (which it definitely is)... it doesn't even apply because there can't be false positive results regarding neurolinguistic programming because there aren't any positive results regarding neurolinguistic programming. Even the paper put out by neurolinguistic programming practicioners themselves wasn't able to produce a detectable effect over a placebo. I'm sorry, my friend, but this is an intervention. You're in a cult. You're making the exact same arguments as homeopaths and faith healers and fortune tellers.

The vast majority of the studies mentioned in those videos are old, where most researchers could get away with hacking the P values [0]. A lot of studies done in the last decade contradict the older ones (the article I linked earlier is full of sources). Also correlation is not causation. In how many of those studies controlled the amount of carbs? Because the combination is very important [1] [0] [this video] [1] [link] Edit: Looking at the last link of your first video, it acknowledges low carb diets are beneficial short and medium term, but there's very little literature for long term. It concludes low carbs are bad long term... but you must see the table on page 13 to see how they reached that conclusion. The "low carb score" group still had a crazily high 37-42% of carbs (compared to LCHF diets which are usually 5% carbs), it had more smokers and all of them had trans fats (very dangerous but can be easily avoided altogether).

Fair enough, you might have indeed rejected those authors - however, vast swathes, for Baumeister the majority, did not at the time. It's almost certainly true now for existing authors we are yet to identify, or maybe never will. I admit the point on TESS, I didn't research that enough. I'll look into that at a later point as I have an interest in learning more. To address your studies regarding expert / study forecasting - thank you for sharing some papers. I had time and knew some papers in the area so I have formulated a response because, as you allude to later regarding cultural predictions, there is debate in the question of the usefulness of expert vs non-expert forecasts (and e.g. there is a wide base of research on recession/war predictions showing the error rate is essentially random at a certain number of years out). I have not fully comprehended the first paper but I understand the gift of it. Economics bridges sociology and the harder science of mathematics, and I do think it makes sense for it to be more predictable than psychology studies by experts(and note the studies being predicted were not survey-response like most are in psychology), but even this one paper does not particularly support your point. Critically, one conclusion in the paper you cite is that "Forecasters with higher vertical, horizontal, or contextual expertise do not make more accurate forecasts.", "If forecasts are used just to rank treatments, non-experts, including even an easy-to-recruit

I can understand the sarcasm and respect your take Science has helped reduce mortality at birth and manage or even eliminate a lot of diseases like malaria, HIV, small pox, polio and many more. Also for burns, broken bones and accidents. And continues to. I advocate vaccines. I myself took the Anti Covid shot 3 times. And use medicines and supplements regularly. There’s another side to it though. At what point do I just take an Adderall that’s prescribed to me? Or a pain killer? Rather than trying preventive lifestyle cures? We need a way to tell when to apply what but IMHO in practical life what gains ground is what serves the providers more rather than the beneficiaries. An interesting example is that Anaesthesia was a more quickly adopted invention than Anti-Septic. Even though the latter is more important for the safety of patients. But the former makes life easier for docs, hence it was adopted much faster. There is a place for both and knowing when to apply which is key. You cannot trust HCPs using allopathy aka science backed by academia in every case cause they’re motivated by self interest and aren’t perfect! Even people like Gabriel Weinberg have acknowledged this in his book Super Thinking when touching upon inefficiencies in healthcare and academia. I believe that to be able to trust science more we need to save science from p-value manipulation by self-interest groups… This video by Veritasium also talks about how the accuracy of most published research is contes