Doing your own research also means being open to the possibility that your hypothesis is incorrect.
Right, because professional researchers and academics have never been blinkered by biases or had financial motives to publish certain things or the fact that most published research is unreproducible horseshit. I don’t need a meta-analyses and cross corroborated studies to know something works for me despite all the published reasons that say it shouldn’t (or vice versa). Pathetic attempt at gatekeeping IMO completely forgetting that most research is in fact based on tinkering and trial & error.
Remember the CRAAP test, everyone:
Currency (Is this information current? If not when was it updated?)
Relevance (Does it make sense to the topic you’re working on? Does it not?)
Authority (Who wrote this article? What are their qualifications?)
Accuracy (Is this information accurate? Can you cross-reference with other articles or papers?)
Purpose (What was the author’s purpose in writing this? Were they paid to write this piece?)
(Edit: formatting)
If “your own research” never makes you change your opinions then you’re not doing research, you’re looking for confirmation.
You’re always wrong about something. Figure out what it is.
Nobody who does that is going to read, let alone understand, this valid criticism of their methodology
I just say “You didn’t do any research, you watched some guy on YouTube and decided he was correct.”
To be fair, there are some people on YouTube who do fantastic research.
My research:
And this is why in the age of search engines and LLMs we need to be teaching, both young and old, how to perform lateral reading.
It’s not a full research skill set but it’s better than nothing.
I hate people who say this as much as the people who say “do your own research” because they are saying the exact same thing in order to minimize any criticism. They also don’t mention that it pertains to very specific types claims. On top of that, many scientific papers often make false claims because academics need funding.
I don’t need to “do research” to express my own personal experiences. If a chemical company is saying that their chemicals “are harmless” I’m going to assume that there’s a good chance that they’re lying out of their ass. The military is currently trying to get out of cleaning up pfas from firefighting foam.
There’s certain things that have been around a long time like fluoride in water, which is most likely fine, but nobody can really be sure that there’s haven’t been some kind of imesurable form of long term effects and people are right not to trust the government.
Another example is GMOs. There’s nothing wrong with GMO crops. It’s the herbicides and pesticides they use. They aren’t just on the outside, the plants are absorbing that stuff. It might only be a small amount, but then again someone could spill a lot in one spot and then a few ears of corn could have a huge amount.
Oil and gas lobbyists spread misinformation about climate change and call it a conspiracy theory. Have you done any climate science to prove it isn’t?
The author is dismissing people that don’t agree with what they think is true without questioning their own beliefs because they are an academic and obviously accedemics are inherently superior to everyone else.
The problem with all of the things you mentioned is that people who are rational about them don’t generally say, “do your own research,” they say, “I defer to scientific experts who know a lot more than me.”
So I don’t have to do my own research on climate change. I just have to trust the educated specialists that have done the research. That’s the whole point.
I’ve seen the claim that average temperatures went up when emissions went down, but this refutes that claim.
A more extreme example is the resistance to hand washing in the medical industry. Experts at the time refuted the claim that hand washing would prevent infection.
https://www.grunge.com/247211/the-tragic-story-of-the-doctor-who-pioneered-hand-washing/
Your first link was about sulfur emissions, not CO2. They do not claim that CO2 isn’t warming the Earth.
Your second link is about something that happened before we knew viruses existed.
Be better.
Edit: Isn’t, not is.
The hyperfocus on co2 emissions detracts from the discussion around local emissions that have a direct effect on the majority of people.
Germ theory has existed since at least the 1500s.
The argument that you should “trust science” falls flat when science is constantly in flux.
Many scientists base their knowledge on preconceived notions of truth. Never trust someone who is 100% sure of something and don’t discount someone just because they aren’t a full blown expert.
I didn’t say “trust science.” That is a nonsensical term. Please do not put words in my mouth.
Also, being 100% sure of something is absolutely not scientific. I think the real issue here is that you don’t understand basic concepts like the scientific method.
Also, it is super dishonest to call Fracastoro’s 15th century seed idea “germ theory.”
If those people could read, they’d be very upset.
Even if they could read, they’d stop after the 4th line or so. They need a video of someone staring them in the face and saying this in simple words with sound effects and pop-up visuals.
Can we use AI to make it come out of Trump’s mouth?
Take each article one by one and look into the source
This is a page out of the conspiracy playbook. We commonly weigh material for bias with no evidence or reasonable justification. A paper confirming climate change seems more credible if it was funded by Exxon than if it were paid for by Green Peace.
This generates exactly the kind of “just so” reasoning that underpins all of conspiracy theory. It literally the belief that powerful forces are manipulating everything from the shadows.
Them: do your own research.
You: Can I review yours?
Back in high school, a dumb redneck kid told a friend of mine, “my opinions is facts.” We’ve been saying it to each other ever since. Pretty good inside joke to have lasted since the mid-90s.
“i do my own research, and my research concluded that you’re an idiot.”
That’s totally going to make the conspiracy theory believers see the error of their ways.
I understand who they’re attacking and why, but I don’t really like this because it’s obvious that recreational research is not the same as professional/academic research, but most people would still call what they’re doing recreationally as “research”. It’s academia trying shame “commoners” because non-academic people use the same word as them but don’t go through all the same rigorous steps researching houses to buy or the MCU timeline or political candidates or restaurants to eat at or identifying all the various Resident Evil VIII hentai out there, but it’s all still research.
I’m pretty sure even in academia, there’s a part of research where you review the literature, it’s taking a look at what others have written on the subject to see if somebody has already addressed the subject or part of the subject that you’re researching. That’s what recreational research is, it just stops there because nobody in their right mind would go through that for the kinds of things you research on your own. Or the peer review process is basically what we see on the internet, that’s what comments/replies are, peer review of recreational research.
I agree with you here in premise, pal.
The “who” they’re attacking is my mother in law. She believes all modern cancer treatments are bad because she’s done her research. She would likely cut off anyone who has had a chemo treatment she feels so strongly about this.
She goes to “children’s health alliance” type seminars and fundraisers and gives them money. She spreads anti vaccination propaganda to her friends, family and any stranger that will listen to her.
She went to nursing school (didn’t graduate) 55 years ago, so she has “knowledge and experiences in these matters”.
She prints out articles and tapes them around the house for when she has company. She email blasts and pastes articles or videos in group messaging feeds. She is right and nothing will change her mind. Evidence and logical rebuttals are met with “deep state” and “big pharmaceutical companies” retorts.
The crazy thing is, it’s a mix of truth and lies which blurs the lines of what you can call out and can’t, and she loves to change the subject as soon as one brings up a point she can’t refute. Raising her voice makes her arguments that much more true.
Now dear reader you must be thinking “How exhausting. What a waste of time to even engage this!” That would be correct, and I don’t. But the point is to bait and draw people into these conversations and although that isn’t me, it’s successful here and there for her to win and feel validated with all of this energy.
The worst part? Her family loves her and seeks her approval so many of them buy into it all. Including those with kids now going unvaccinated.
So I hear your initial point, but this type of questioning could lead to someone being shut down properly if enough were to hit a “I did my research” perpetrator like my MIL. This isn’t about “top 5 ways to fix your AC condenser unit when it stops” type research.
We know what the OP is attacking, and generally agree. Effectively saying that commoners can’t do their own research isn’t the way to get that done.
You need more practical advice than just “you can’t do it”. Something like the CRAAP test mentioned here is closer to the right approach.
Thinking about it more, something simpler makes more sense.
- Don’t trust the algorithms.
- Question your sources
- Understand the opposite point of view from their point of view.
- Don’t search for the conclusion you want
If you’re into talking to a flat earther, I’d recommend getting a little into flat earth stuff. You’ll understand it better if you’re looking at the same sources they are (valid or not). And, of course, vice versa. And you can then choose which one makes more sense, maybe even switching if the opposite side seems to make more sense than your own.
Yeah, and I get that, reading fraudulent facebook posts about alternative medicine while on the toilet doesn’t really count as research, but the original post itself comes across as more elitist than anything and anybody who’s looking into alternative medicine probably already has a distrust of anything the scientific community throws at them anyways. So telling them, “You’re not following the accepted scientific method,” they’re just going to respond, “Well, yeah, that’s the point.”
i have a close relative who is basically exactly like this, but with everything alternative medicine. i feel you.
i usually ask them leading questions when they bring up ridiculous health claims, like who published this and what else have they published, what’s the theory of work behind this, etc. the only effect is that they have taken to mocking me by asking me the for sources and paper trails random things i bring up in conversation.
Big academia shaming the village idiots or something…
