Science Fictions

A deep dive into the rise and fall of power posing, from viral TED fame to scientific reappraisal. They trace the original small-study claims about posture, hormones and confidence. Replication attempts, statistical criticisms and public backlash get sharp attention. The conversation ends by weighing what, if any, simple posture advice remains.

They dive into a controversial documentary portrayal and a BAFTA incident tied to a person with Tourette's. They describe unusual tics, triggers, and how groups respond with humour and self-awareness. They debate casting and accents in film and TV. They tease deeper looks at causes, diagnosis and treatment, plus the TikTok contagion question.

A bizarre 2024 claim of oxygen appearing on the abyssal seafloor without photosynthesis sparks debates about natural batteries, deep-sea mining and the origin of aerobic life. The story dives into lander measurements, electrochemistry objections, reanalyses, possible measurement artefacts and heated scientific disputes. The hosts lean toward experimental error over a revolutionary new process.

They examine the 2D:4D digit ratio and the long history of research and hype around it. They cover claims linking finger length to aggression, trading success, musical ability, sexuality, penis size, and COVID outcomes. Measurement problems, replication failures, statistical pitfalls and dubious causal chains get called out. The tone is skeptical and often humorous.

A lively critique of Johan Hari’s claims about depression and treatment methods. A breakdown of public controversies and journalistic methods behind sweeping arguments. A focus on conflicting research and dueling meta-analyses about antidepressant effectiveness. A teaser that invites listeners to explore the full debate and evidence in the paid version.

A deep dive into the controversy around electroconvulsive therapy. They trace its gruesome history and modern, anaesthetised practice. They examine the shaky clinical trials, sham controls, and ethical arguments for and against more research. They unpack evidence on cognitive and autobiographical memory harms and debate how clinicians weigh risks for the most severe cases.

A lively dive into what “critical thinking” actually means and whether it can be taught. They examine studies from tree octopus hoaxes to large media-literacy trials and question claims that education alone fixes gullibility. The conversation covers teachability, surprising meta-analysis results, transfer limits, and practical tactics like lateral reading that show modest gains.

A lively dive into the messy state of medical cannabis research and why recent policy shifts could change that. They unpack weird US drug scheduling, how rescheduling might free up better clinical trials, and the limits of government-supplied cannabis for research. Listeners hear about mixed evidence across pain, seizures, nausea, and societal effects, plus concerns around psychosis and dependence.

The hosts dive into microplastics, revisiting sensational claims about their presence in human tissues. They dissect alarming reports linking microplastics to health risks, including DNA damage and reproductive issues. With a mix of skepticism and scientific inquiry, they highlight flaws in previous studies. The discussion also touches on the mechanics of how microplastics might cause harm, contrasting mechanical blockage with chemical toxicity. Finally, they celebrate their earlier cautious stance on declining sperm counts, backed by new research.

Discover the intriguing Many-Analysts Problem, where identical datasets yield wildly different conclusions. Delve into examples from sports data highlighting bias, and explore how researchers' choices shape findings in studies. The discussion spans fMRI results, ideological influences, and the impact of data cleaning on outcomes. With critiques of traditional analysis and suggestions for improvement, this episode invites listeners to rethink the objectivity of science. Join the conversation on transparency, collaboration, and what it means for research credibility!