Timeline for Pop-sci books that were publicly influential but based on weak science
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 1, 2018 at 15:55 | comment | added | Eff | I have accepted this answer, because I think it is the most complete. But I also upvoted several of the other answers. | |
| Dec 1, 2018 at 15:55 | vote | accept | Eff | ||
| Dec 1, 2018 at 13:35 | history | edited | LаngLаngС | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1363 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2018 at 12:58 | history | edited | LаngLаngС | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4598 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2018 at 12:06 | comment | added | Eff | To truly answer the question, is there any specific examples of books that you think are truly egregious? For example, one self-help book that has the lowest scientific quality to influence ratio? | |
| Nov 30, 2018 at 12:58 | comment | added | Eff | Yep, that's what my question is about, and I agree with your answer. | |
| Nov 30, 2018 at 12:53 | comment | added | LаngLаngС | @Eff Yeah, p-hacking, pub-bias… I could delve quite into the problems inherent to many fields of science. But isn't this Q about the soup that pop-sci authors brew from that? | |
| Nov 30, 2018 at 12:33 | comment | added | Eff | I agree with this answer (+1), although that most research is based on WEIRD people is the least of the problems. The Many Labs 2 Project found only few differences between WEIRD and non-WEIRD. The biggest problem is simply how robust the findings actually are. Let's Power Pose anyone?! | |
| Nov 30, 2018 at 12:25 | review | First posts | |||
| Dec 1, 2018 at 7:43 | |||||
| Nov 30, 2018 at 12:24 | history | answered | LаngLаngС | CC BY-SA 4.0 |