Why Can't They Publicate This?

3min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

In a journal, you're not allowed to say things like we don't know why this happens. A reviewer once literally told me that my paper was too fun and that I should make it more boring. You're supposed to pack your paper with pointless citations because reviewers might like your paper more if they see their name in it. There's a stupid way to do science. It goes against every single one of scientific virtues,. At least publication bias. If it gets in a fancy journal, it goes into an institution behind a paywall and you have to be one of the elites to even get access to it. The studies themselves are just as good as the ones Ethan and I have published in

David and Tamler gild and stain David Humeâ€™s essay â€œThe Scepticâ€ with their sentiments. If nothing is inherently valuable or despicable, desirable or hateful, then what do philosophers have to offer when it comes to happiness? If reason is powerless, does it all come down to our emotions and â€œhumoursâ€? Or does the study of philosophy and liberal arts naturally lead to a fulfilling and virtuous life? Plus we look at a new non-traditional social psych paper on how we always imagine that things could be better, and tip our caps to the queen of handling Twitter pile-ons (and former VBW guest) â€“ Candy Mom.