[jasallen]

I can't think you really believe that to be true.

Your description says you are a neuro-scientist. So science is just something you say? If you say it, it is true? Or do you usually try to provide supporting documentation? Show statistical evidence and provide the parameters under which such figures were gathered? Encourage others to reproduce such results rather than merely relying on 'stuff you said'?

In this age research fraud run amok I think "its science cuz scientists said it" is a particularly dangerous viewpoint.

[tokipin]

i think you're jumping the gun. he means that science is vetted by consensus. and this particular website has a casual tone and the videos look like layman explanations for people who aren't afraid of getting a teeny bit technical.

though, i would agree that citations wouldn't hurt if particular claims are being made, but a lot of the videos look like overviews of generic knowledge

[kghose]

Lectures often don't have citations. It breaks up the flow. Basic text books often don't have citations. Citations by themselves are also meaningless.

The ideal of science that we are taught boils down to one premise and one premise only: as part of a scientific statement there will be a recipe. By following this recipe we can replicate the findings of the author.

This ideal is met less and less the more complex and expensive our science gets.

(Thanks for the support and clarification btw!)

[ivarrr]

Dangerous viewpoint is when science is provided by anonymous wikipedia, but not by scientists themselves.

[judk]

It's how we avoid cult of personality and the fallacy of argument from authority.