Charles Piller

And so, yes, I support the very excellent exercise of that method. And I support people who are trying their level best to deliver something important to the public, even if they do sometimes make mistakes. How would you describe the scientific method for the general public? Well, science is a series of iterations.

And so, yes, I support the very excellent exercise of that method. And I support people who are trying their level best to deliver something important to the public, even if they do sometimes make mistakes. How would you describe the scientific method for the general public? Well, science is a series of iterations.

And I think one of the great things about science is that every new discovery opens up vast new areas of ignorance in order to be able to explore and improve upon what we know. So I would say it's... bringing in a hypothesis forward, testing it, and then learning from those tests what amount of that hypothesis was true and correct and can be applied to human benefit.

And I think one of the great things about science is that every new discovery opens up vast new areas of ignorance in order to be able to explore and improve upon what we know. So I would say it's... bringing in a hypothesis forward, testing it, and then learning from those tests what amount of that hypothesis was true and correct and can be applied to human benefit.

And I think one of the great things about science is that every new discovery opens up vast new areas of ignorance in order to be able to explore and improve upon what we know. So I would say it's... bringing in a hypothesis forward, testing it, and then learning from those tests what amount of that hypothesis was true and correct and can be applied to human benefit.

Sometimes we see that these ideas are completely without foundation when they're tested, and those should be discarded. Others have a grain of truth or an element of them that could be extended and made into something very valuable. Every so often, there are tremendous breakthroughs that are discovered in a single or a single series of experiments.

Sometimes we see that these ideas are completely without foundation when they're tested, and those should be discarded. Others have a grain of truth or an element of them that could be extended and made into something very valuable. Every so often, there are tremendous breakthroughs that are discovered in a single or a single series of experiments.

Sometimes we see that these ideas are completely without foundation when they're tested, and those should be discarded. Others have a grain of truth or an element of them that could be extended and made into something very valuable. Every so often, there are tremendous breakthroughs that are discovered in a single or a single series of experiments.

Why do you think that currently in our state of media, there's a lot of fanfare where there's a positive scientific research article? And yet when there is a negative finding where it negates something that we thought or perhaps something that we believed in at once, there is less fanfare about that, less correction or noise about the correction. Why do you think we don't focus on those as much?

Why do you think that currently in our state of media, there's a lot of fanfare where there's a positive scientific research article? And yet when there is a negative finding where it negates something that we thought or perhaps something that we believed in at once, there is less fanfare about that, less correction or noise about the correction. Why do you think we don't focus on those as much?

Why do you think that currently in our state of media, there's a lot of fanfare where there's a positive scientific research article? And yet when there is a negative finding where it negates something that we thought or perhaps something that we believed in at once, there is less fanfare about that, less correction or noise about the correction. Why do you think we don't focus on those as much?

Well, I think there's one fundamental problem in the scientific literature that leads a bit to this, which is that careers are made on discoveries. They're not made on repeating experiments and finding that they don't work after all.

Well, I think there's one fundamental problem in the scientific literature that leads a bit to this, which is that careers are made on discoveries. They're not made on repeating experiments and finding that they don't work after all.

Well, I think there's one fundamental problem in the scientific literature that leads a bit to this, which is that careers are made on discoveries. They're not made on repeating experiments and finding that they don't work after all.

Isn't that why we have the replication crisis that we currently do?

Isn't that why we have the replication crisis that we currently do?

Isn't that why we have the replication crisis that we currently do?

It is. And you see it in all different fields, not just, of course, in Alzheimer's disease, but in all different kinds of medicine and social sciences. Psychology a lot? Absolutely. Yeah, it's a big problem.

It is. And you see it in all different fields, not just, of course, in Alzheimer's disease, but in all different kinds of medicine and social sciences. Psychology a lot? Absolutely. Yeah, it's a big problem.

It is. And you see it in all different fields, not just, of course, in Alzheimer's disease, but in all different kinds of medicine and social sciences. Psychology a lot? Absolutely. Yeah, it's a big problem.