Talk:Andrew Huberman/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Rearrangement

Hi @Bon courage – I'm not sure I agree with your latest reworking of the article, including removing the reception subheading and putting a lot of different perspectives into a giant paragraph. It's a bit confusing and SLATE also requires attribution and shouldn't be used in Wikivoice. Think we should restore it to the original form. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Why does Slate require attribution? On the contrary, WP:YESPOV applies and not abiding by it would cause WP:NPOV problem – we can't pretend it's just an 'opinon' that Huberman spouts pseudoscience; it is uncontested knowledge. I also think (effectively) hiving off 'criticism' to its own section while allowing the podcast to have it's own sanitised section causes POV issues. When dealing with WP:FRINGE matter (like this podcast's pseudoscientific claims) we need to be very clear than the fringe is fringe. We've been very good in this article not mentioning the problems in the podcast content without good sources, but now the sources are here we need to be explicit that the podcast is a conduit for health misinformation and bullshit. Bon courage (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The Slate article really deserves elaborating on. Merely mentioning "Pseudoscience" doesn't do the article justice. There's some other stuff that's worth mentioning, like his anti-fluoridation posturing. In my own opinion, Slate is unquestionably a reliable source.Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree, there is plenty to come from this source (it's just I have a cat and breakfast to attend to!) Bon courage (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, do we add the "sunscreen molecules stay in the body for 10 years" source to the opening as a second citation about pseudoscience? You could add the word 'misinformation' as that article does use that term right below his claim. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I understand. Honestly, I am just worn down by the large number of Huberman (and related Lex Fridman) fans coming here to attack and try and remove any critique of him... the "sanitised" version was easier to maintain. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

With newer sources take heart! Writing a neutral article should become much easier ... Bon courage (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably we try and ask for long term page protection on the article if it gets bad. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Slate article

This article is not written by a staff writer of Slate; rather, it is a guest post by Andrea Love, much like opinion columns in The New York Times. This shouldn't be attributed to Slate and it is undue to add it to the lead. Weilins (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Expert review of the topic, so seems good. It's necessary to call out the obvious pseudoscience in play on that podcast I think, to be neutral. Note I have notified WP:FTN that this topic may need extra attention. Bon courage (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

He is not passing fringe theories, and if some pop culture magazines start to call Stanford professors pseudoscientists and we just give them undue representation, then there is something wrong with Wikipedia and we are biased. We should care only when a scientist criticizes his research in a peer-reviewed journal. Weilins (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not his Stanford work which is doubt, it's the podcast content (and this is clear in our article). And yes, it's obviously pretty bad. WP:PSCI means we've a duty to be crystal clear when pseudoscience is in play. Bon courage (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Claiming that sunscreen is as dangerous as melanoma, and that sunscreen molecules stay the body for 10 years (without evidence) is absolutely pushing pseudoscience. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

There's no reason to think that the article hasn't gone through the same review process that other articles in Slate go through, so there's no difference in reliability from Slate's staff written articles. The Medical Examiner section of Slate's website [1] doesn't appear to be an opinion section, so the comparsion with the opinion section of the NYTimes is inapt. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

NY Magazine statement

The statement on animal studies was made by his distractors, not NY Magazine, quoting the article below: His detractors note that Huberman extrapolates wildly from limited animal studies, posits certainty where there is ambiguity, and stumbles when he veers too far from his narrow realm of study, but even they will tend to admit that the podcast is an expansive, free (or, as he puts it, “zero-cost”) compendium of human knowledge. There are quack guests, but these are greatly outnumbered by profound, complex, patient, and often moving descriptions of biological process. Weilins (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

"His detractors note that" implies that the NYM writer considers these criticisms valid, so I don't see a problem with attributing them to NYM. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thesis advisors

Cyberpuke, please dont reinsert the list of thesis advisors into the side bar. These are not reliable secondary sources. We aren't using podcast episodes as sources.

Also, his 2004 thesis list Barbara as the advisor in brackets. Debello and Cheng are just part of his committee (stated on the acknowledgements page). We don't list PhD committee members in the sidebars of academics lol. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Slate as a source

slate to me seems like a gossip website should it be a trusted source?? DataCrusade1999 (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a pretty solid source; check previous discussion at WP:RSN to get a feel for how it's viewed. Bon courage (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I just glanced at Slate Wikipedia page and looked at their editorial policy I agree with you.

But this article by Andrea seems to have only one goal which is crticism of Huberman. I don't have a problem with criticism but I think the criticism should either be mentioned in it's own section as Andrea's article has a list of criticism or it should be mentioned anywhere but not in the Introduction. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:CRITS usually not a good idea. When it comes to the health podcasts, it seems sensible sources concur there's a lot to be concerned about. Bon courage (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Much of the article is needlessly accusatory (and referential to nonacademic sources) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.170.190 (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

New Vox source

• Ohlheiser AW (2024-05-02). "The misleading information in one of America's most popular podcasts". Vox. Retrieved 2024-05-03.

Should be useful. Bon courage (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Vox owns NY Magazine and is reporting on their own story? Nothing new is presented in the material. Per WP:RSPVOX the publication does not always delineate between opinion and reporting. This seems like one of those cases. Pastillawheel (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear cut there some views and some reporting. What's confusing you? Since this is WP:GREL we're good to go! Bon courage (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:GOSSIP still applies. A publication reporting on its own gossip does not news make. It feels like journalist version of trying to whitewash to somehow make a WP:BLP rejected claim somehow more newsworthy. Pastillawheel (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The gossip is undue, but the misinformation and grift could do with more coverage. Bon courage (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Reading through Vox again, I don't see anything new that hasn't been covered by Slate or NY Magazine, and I find it problematic that Vox is providing a meta coverage of other opinions and trying to pass it off somehow as reporting. Any additional information that would add substance to this Huberman Wikipedia page is really just pinned on hearsay from Love. Pastillawheel (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The Vox article contains assessments from scientific researchers at reputable academic institutions. One of those scientists is Love, who provides specific examples of misinformation, or the misrepresentation of scientific evidence on Huberman's podcast. For example, his inaccurate statements about a study using human subjects when it actually used rodents, or when he argued that saunas could improve immune function, citing a study with only 20 participants and which did not directly measure immune function. Both examples should be included in the article. This is not gossip by any definition. Nor is it hearsay. It is rather a professional assessment from a qualified expert. Same goes for the statements by Tim Caulfield from the University of Alberta. Note that he was not featured in prior Slate or NY Mag articles, so the Vox piece does not merely restate earlier publications. Caulfield's assessment is also quite balanced, and would be worth including in the article, specifically:

“He’s a good communicator, right? That’s why he’s a star,” Tim Caulfield, a professor of health law and science policy at the University of Alberta, told me in late 2023. Huberman often does a “very good job” talking about the science behind a topic he’s exploring in an episode, Caulfield added, but “in the end, the overall takeaway, I think, is less supported by the science than the impression you’re given listening to the episode.”

The fact that Vox and NY Mag share a corporate owner is irrelevant. We are in an era of media conglomerates, who often own numerous publications, and make regular new acquisitions. Unless you can specifically demonstrate why this corporate structure affects the reliability of the source, then it should not prevent editors from using the source to inform their contributions.

Toadchavay (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The point is that there is nothing new in Vox's article. It is a summary of what the sources have already said, and this kind of article was expected as one of their publications, NY Mag, published a cover story about Huberman.

Regarding Love's guest article on Slate: she is a microbiologist, and it is not right to call her a subject-matter expert in neuroscience; the same goes for Caulfield, as he is primarily a law expert. In any case, we are required to cite multiple references for such cases, so two independent experts should find inaccuracies in Huberman's statements. I think at some point we should consider splitting this into a separate page about Huberman's podcast, as most of the content is related to what is said on his podcast. Weilins (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Criticism or Controversy section

There's a lot of information under podcasts that is focused on criticisms of the pseudoscientific nature of his podcast and such. I came to the page specifically looking for info on these after hearing about hm promoting supplements but didn't expect the relevant information to be under the podcast section. Indeed most of the podcast section is criticisms. Floating these to the top level of the page under a controversy, criticism or similar header would make it easier for people to find this information. 2603:7081:233A:6A05:48B1:7931:4E00:4B59 (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)