TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Science

    Science Fictions

    A weekly podcast about the latest scientific controversies, with Tom Chivers and Stuart Ritchie

    sciencefictionspod.substack.com

    Advertise

    Copyright: © Tom Chivers and Stuart Ritchie

    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    Episode 28: Climate models Feb 27, 2024
    Show notes

    Remember when the airwaves were full of people questioning the idea of man-made climate change? You don’t hear much from them any more - in large part becuase the evidence that our CO2 emissions are altering the climate has become so overwhelming.

    After a recap on how we know that carbon warms the climate, Tom and Stuart use this episode of The Studies Show to discuss climate predictions—er, I mean, projections—and how accurate they’ve been. They ask whether the media always gets it right when discussing climate (spoiler: no), and whether we should be optimistic or panicked about what’s happening to the environment.

    The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine. Ever wondered what people mean when they talk about “progress studies”? Works in Progress is what they mean. It’s a magazine bursting with fascinating articles on how science and technology have improved our lives - and how they could be even better in future. There’s a whole new February 2024 issue out now - read it at this link.

    Show notes

    * 2023: the hottest year on record, with surprising and anomalous melting of ice in Antarctica

    * NASA on how the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere raises the Earth’s temperature

    * Carbon Brief explains how scientists estimate climate sensitivity, and discusses the complexities of the latest climate models

    * The most recent IPCC report, from March 2023

    * The IEA’s forecast of solar power, with the incredible and very optimistic graph mentioned in the episode:

    * Tom’s unfortunately-titled Unherd article on the unlikely but much-discussed “RCP 8.5” scenario

    * Zeke Hausfather’s study on matching up the projections of climate models with what actually happened years and decades later

    * Response from the sceptics (they still exist!)

    * Website offering responses to all the most common claims by climate change sceptics (e.g. “the Earth hasn’t warmed since 1998”; “CO2 is plant food”)

    * Toby Ord on how, whereas climate change could be extremely bad, it’s tricky to argue that it’s a truly “existential” risk

    Credits and acknowledgements

    The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. We’re grateful to Karsten Haustein for talking to us for this episode (any errors are our own).


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

    Paid-only Episode 5: The Hans Eysenck saga Feb 20, 2024
    Show notes

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com

    Hans Eysenck was one of the biggest names in psychology. Was he also a scientific fraudster? Long after his death, allegations resurfaced about his late-career studies, which either contained some of the most impressive findings in medical history, were a terrible mistake… or were the result of something much more sinister.

    In this paid-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart tell the shocking—and often darkly amusing—tale of Hans Eysenck and his enigmatic collaborator, Ronald Grossarth-Maticek. If you’ve enjoyed the recent episodes on personality, on psychotherapy, and on scientific fraud, how about a story that combines them all into one totally disastrous indictment of the way we do science?

    To listen to the full version of this episode and see the show notes, you’ll need to be a paid subscriber to The Studies Show podcast on Substack. Go to www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe to see the options. If you’re already a paid subscriber: thank you! Hope you enjoy the episode.


    Episode 27: Exercise Feb 13, 2024
    Show notes

    Okay, whether exercise is good isn’t really in question. But there are so many pseudoscientific myths surrounding sports and exercise that it’s always worth looking more closely at some of the claims.

    In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look into two widely-believed claims about exercise. First, does stretching your muscles before exercising actually help you in any way? Second, does exercise help alleviate the symptoms of depression? And then, they ask a bonus question inspired by the quality of the evidence on the previous two: why is so much of sports science so crap?

    The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress, the brilliant magazine of ideas about human progress. If you’re at all interested in science and technology, and in reading detailed, well-researched, beautifully-illustrated articles about some surprising and fascinating scientific topics, then Works in Progress is the magazine for you. What’s more, it’s all free. Take a look at their website at this link.

    Show notes

    * Old (and bad) 1983 study on stretching and muscle injury

    * Review questioning the theoretical basis of the supposed benefit of stretching

    * 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence for (among other things) stretching

    * 2005 review of the same, with very similar results

    * 2011 Cochrane Review of stretching to prevent delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS)

    * The strange fad of “kinesio tape”, used by many top athletes (for no actual demonstrable benefit)

    * The TREAD study on physical activity for depression

    * Tom on the very angry Guardian article attacking the TREAD study

    * 2013 Cochrane Review on exercise for depression - a very small effect

    * 2021 meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of exercise for depression symptoms (in people without clinical depression)

    * Survey on the replication crisis in sports & exercise science

    * Attempt to replicate four sports & exercise science studies

    * The Sports Science Replication Center, who ran the above replication attempt

    Credits

    The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

    Episode 26: Psychotherapy Feb 06, 2024
    Show notes

    What treatment works best for people with depression? Is it psychodynamic psychotherapy, in the Freudian tradition, with its emphasis on hidden, unconscious desires? Or is it Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, based on more contemporary (and less, y’know, made up) ways of thinking about psychology? How do you even do a good study on something as complicated as psychological therapy, anyway?

    In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom (ego) and Stuart (superego) talk about two recent reviews that summarise all the evidence on which kind of therapy works best - and find some results that surprise them both.

    The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine - a journal of new and exciting ideas about how to make the world better. Recent issues have covered topics as varied as geothermal power, architecture, the scientific literature, vaccines, and cocktails - explaining how we’ve made progress with them in the past, and how we might improve them even more in future. Find all their articles for free at this link.

    Show notes

    * Paper on the importance of the control group in psychotherapy RCTs

    * The pros and cons of “treatment as usual” as a control group

    * The 2023 meta-analysis on psychodynamic psychotherapy

    * The 2023 meta-analysis on cognitive behavioural therapy

    * An argument as to why CBT is the “gold standard” of psychotherapy

    * Frederick Crews’s very very negative book on Freud

    * The online tool we used to put the effect sizes in terms of “% of the treatment group doing better than the control group”

    Credits

    The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

    Episode 25: Is it the phones? Jan 30, 2024
    Show notes

    Everyone seems to have decided that it’s the phones. That is, they’ve decided that heavy smartphone and social-media use is to blame for the current wave of mental illness, despair, and depression that’s affecting young people - teenage girls in particular.

    Except… we need to ask how strong the evidence is. What do the studies actually show about what’s causing the mental health crisis? And, wait - is there actually a mental health crisis to begin with? In this extra-long episode of The Studies Show (it’s a big topic after all), Tom and Stuart attempt to find out.

    The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. Do you like reading about science and technology? Do you like learning about the drivers of human progress? Then this is the magazine for you. You can find all their beautifully written and illustrated articles for free on their main website, along with some excellent shorter pieces on their Substack.

    Show Notes

    * UK MP calls for a ban on social media “and perhaps even smartphones” for under-16s; Prime Minister is considering it

    * Jonathan Haidt’s upcoming book The Anxious Generation

    * His November 2023 interview with The Spectator on the “rewiring of childhood”

    * His big Google Doc of all the relevant studies in this area

    * Jean Twenge’s famous Atlantic article, “Have smartphones destroyed a generation?”

    * Her book iGen

    * One of Twenge’s studies, which the book is based on: n = 500,000 analysis of depression traits and “new media screen time”

    * Amy Orben’s critique

    * Flurry of articles by well-respected writers in 2023 expressing some degree of confidence that “it’s the phones”: John Burn-Murdoch; Noah Smith; Matt Yglesias (though he’s more interested in other reasons)

    * Haidt’s 2023 article arguing we can now say it’s a cause, not just a correlation - and “a major cause” at that

    * Evidence that the US suicide rate is increasing

    * Evidence that the suicide rate in other countries is not increasing: Norway, Sweden, Denmark; the UK - see below for the heatmap of age-group vs. year and suicide rate for the UK:

    * 2023 NBER paper cautioning that some of the rise in the US suicide rate might be due to measurement differences

    * Chris Ferguson et al.’s 2021 meta-analysis that concludes there’s a lack of evidence to suggest that screen time affects mental health

    * Przybylski & Vuorre’s 2023 paper - across 168 countries, internet connectivity is correlated with better wellbeing

    * Orben & Przybylski’s 2019 “specfication curve” paper (the “potatoes” one)

    * Twenge & Haidt’s own specification curve paper suggesting social media use is a stronger predictor of poor wellbeing than is hard drug use

    * Stuart’s article for the i going into detail on some of the causal studies of phones/social media and mental health

    * Dean Eckles criticising the “Facebook arrives at universities” study

    Credits & Acknowledgements

    The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. We’re grateful to Chris Ferguson and Andy Przybylski for talking to us about their research.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

    Paid-only Episode 4: Male and female brains Jan 23, 2024
    Show notes

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com

    Either there are massive differences between the brains of men and women, or there aren’t any notable differences at all - and people who think differences exist are “neurosexists”. It’s easy to find well-qualified scientists making each of these arguments. They can’t all be right.

    What’s going on? What do the biggest and best MRI studies of brain sex differences tell us? Do we know what causes them, or how they might affect our psychology? And what does “sexual dimorphism” even mean, anyway? In this paid-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart try to sort through some of the diametrically-opposed scientific claims.

    To listen to the full version of this episode and see the show notes, you’ll need to be a paid subscriber to The Studies Show podcast on Substack. Go to www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe to see the options. If you’re already a paid subscriber: thank you!


    Episode 24: Personality Jan 16, 2024
    Show notes

    Why do some people love parties and others prefer to stay at home with a book? Why do some people worry endlessly about all the bad things that might happen, while others breeze through life with supreme confidence? Why is Stuart such a nice guy and Tom far less so?

    In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart discuss personality and the personality tests that are supposed to measure it. They discuss whether it might be the Big Five or the Big Six, what measuring personality is good for, and whether “Grit” is even a thing. Not only that, but for the many, many people who are desperate to know, they both reveal their own personality test results.

    The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine. We absolutely love reading its beautifully-written, well-researched essays on science, technology, and human progress, and if you’re a listener to this podcast, we’re pretty sure you will, too. Take a look at the whole collection of articles—all available for free—right here.

    Show Notes

    * Free site to calculate your Big Five personality profile

    * Free site to calculate your Big Six (HEXACO) personality profile

    * Tom’s Big Five personality profile:

    * Stuart’s Big Five personality profile:

    * Is it the Big Five or the Big Six? An example of a paper that supports the latter option

    * Razib Khan’s podcast interview with personality psychologist Brent Roberts

    * Example of a study on personality and job performance

    * Paper by Christopher Soto testing the replicability of personality’s associations with life outcomes

    * Paper showing how “Grit” is really just a re-description of “Conscientiousness”

    * Severe critique of the Big Five by “a literal banana” (also read the comments!)

    * Story of the Hans Eysenck personality-and-health fraud (also see this meta-analysis of personality and health)

    * Meta-analysis of how personality factors change over time

    * Meta-analysis of interventions that can change personality factors

    Credits

    The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

    Episode 23: Statistical significance Jan 09, 2024
    Show notes

    It’s mentioned on the podcast pretty much every week. But what does “statistical significance” actually mean?

    In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart start 2024 off with the most exciting subject possible: p-values. THRILL as they discuss statistical misconceptions! MARVEL as they talk about how “effect size” differs from “statistical significance”! CHUCKLE as they resort to endless coin-flipping analogies! And GASP as they discuss ways to stop scientists from “hacking” their p-values and ending up with misleading research!

    The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine - an online magazine full of essays about science, technology, and human progress. Works in Progress is the kind of magazine that makes its readers massively better-informed about every subject it covers, with deeply-researched articles by experts in the relevant fields - and it’s all free. Check it out at their site right here.

    Show notes

    * 89% of psychology textbooks get p-values wrong

    * Letter on how the research on power-posing went wrong

    * The classic “false-positive psychology” paper on how p-hacking can get you any result you want

    * The FiveThirtyEight online p-hacking tool

    * The “p-curve” method for detecting p-hacking

    * How p-hacking is just “overfitting” by another name

    * List of weasel terms like “approaching significance”

    * Reading on a screen before bed “might be killing you”!

    * The (much less scary) relevant study

    * Tom’s BuzzFeed News article on the idea to lower the p-value threshold to 0.005

    * The original paper, plus the response arguing that scientists should “justify their alpha”

    * Registered Reports, and how they can deter p-hacking

    Credits

    The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

    Episode 22: Review of 2023 Dec 29, 2023
    Show notes

    We admit it: The Studies Show tends to be quite negative. We’re always complaining about low-quality studies, faulty reasoning, and bad science.

    Not this time! In this end-of-year special, Tom and Stuart discuss the good science news from the past year, covering all the coolest technologies and most life-saving medical advances from 2023.

    See you in 2024 - oh, and pre-order Tom’s book on Bayes!

    Credits

    The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

    Episode 21: Falling sperm counts Dec 19, 2023
    Show notes

    Every so often there’s a panic in the media: sperm count is declining! The human race is on the way out! New studies regularly appear that seem to support this idea. The recent book Count Down by epidemiologist Shanna Swan argued vociferously that the culprit is plastic pollution, which apparently releases endocrine-disrupting chemicals that ruin our fertility.

    Is any of that true? What do the meta-analyses, which try to gather together all the evidence on sperm counts over time, really say on this question? In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart ask whether there’s convincing evidence of a great drop-off in fecundity - and if so, what could possibly be causing it.

    The Studies Show is proud to be sponsored by Works in Progress magazine - the best place online to find brilliantly-written, idea-filled articles about science, technology, and human progress. If you’re into those topics (and let’s face it, if you’re listening to this podcast you are), take a look at their main site, as well as their Substack, to find tons of reading material for your festive season.

    Show notes

    * Tom’s Unherd review of the Shanna Swan book Count Down

    * Link to the book

    * Stuart’s Spectator article on whether there’s evidence for sperm count decline

    * Detailed Astral Codex Ten article on sperm count decline and what might cause it

    * Original (seminal!) 1974 article on “changing parameters of male fertility potential”

    * 1992 Carlsen et al. meta-analysis, showing the following data:

    * 2017 Levine et al. meta-analysis (co-authored by Swan), showing the following data:

    * Response to the Levine et al. meta-analysis, worrying about some of its political implications

    * 2023 follow-up meta-analysis including data from more countries

    * 2022 Nature Reviews Urology article with lots of useful methodological points

    * Older 2008 Fisch review/critique of the idea of a decline

    * Article on regional differences in sperm quality (Edinburgh wins, kind of!)

    * Debate between proponents and sceptics of the idea that sperm count is declining

    * Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz’s Substack post on whether pesticides are killing your sperm…

    * …responding to this meta-analysis

    Credits

    The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

    Previous 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Invisibilia

    1

    Invisibilia Personal Journals
    Hidden Brain – Hidden Brain, Shankar Vedantam

    2

    Hidden Brain – Hidden Brain, Shankar Vedantam Science
    How To Do Everything

    3

    How To Do Everything Science
    Hidden Brain

    4

    Hidden Brain Games & Hobbies
    Something You Should Know

    5

    Something You Should Know Education
    Sword and Scale – Sword and Scale

    6

    Sword and Scale – Sword and Scale Alternative Health
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights