Jump to content

Do your own research


Recommended Posts

from a person named Linda Spadero

did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article?

did you critique each article for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies?

did you scrutinise the sources of each article (author, publisher, funder)?

did you examine the intent of the sources to publish the particular results of each article?

did you follow the trail of references and apply the same critique, scrutiny and examination to them as you did to each article?

did you assemble a random sample of articles both for and against the topic and perform independent statistics trials on the reported results?
 


if we didn't do all of these things then we never did our own research and we probably don't actually know how to do research. What we did was read some articles which accord with our implicit biases and called it proof. Said another way, the only thing we have proofed is that we have implicit biases which we believe to be true

and then to top it off when we realise, after having done actual research, that what we are stating is not true, we say: well! I dunno if it is true or not. I just like to believe that it is

which is fine when the topic is say the existence of life of our avatar when we log off, but beyond this then not so fine

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mollymews said:

from a person named Linda Spadero

did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article?

did you critique each article for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies?

did you scrutinise the sources of each article (author, publisher, funder)?

did you examine the intent of the sources to publish the particular results of each article?

did you follow the trail of references and apply the same critique, scrutiny and examination to them as you did to each article?

did you assemble a random sample of articles both for and against the topic and perform independent statistics trials on the reported results?
 

Isn't that what Fact checking sites are for? ;)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mollymews said:

from a person named Linda Spadero

did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article?

did you critique each article for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies?

did you scrutinise the sources of each article (author, publisher, funder)?

did you examine the intent of the sources to publish the particular results of each article?

did you follow the trail of references and apply the same critique, scrutiny and examination to them as you did to each article?

did you assemble a random sample of articles both for and against the topic and perform independent statistics trials on the reported results?
 


if we didn't do all of these things then we never did our own research and we probably don't actually know how to do research. What we did was read some articles which accord with our implicit biases and called it proof. Said another way, the only thing we have proofed is that we have implicit biases which we believe to be true

and then to top it off when we realise, after having done actual research, that what we are stating is not true, we say: well! I dunno if it is true or not. I just like to believe that it is

which is fine when the topic is say the existence of life of our avatar when we log off, but beyond this then not so fine

I really like what you've posted as it demonstrates just how complicated and difficult research really is.

Nobody has time to do it correctly though, so I'm afraid we have to depend on those who do and present results to us. Sometimes they get it wrong, but if you pick a good synthesizer they are often right.

Perhaps we need to be aware of criteria for picking a good synthesizer, like a good science writer, for example.

My go-to person for Covid information is Laurie Garrett. Mainly I chose her because she has researched viruses thoroughly for decades, has a proven track record with predictions, and is well-respected by educated people.

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I ought to check up on who Linda Spadero is before accepting that what they have said is true. Artist? I wonder if she mixes her own pigments in the way the artist who forged Vermeer did? That was brilliant research.

I then thought, I ought to check up on Molly before accepting what she's relaying about Linda Spadero, but I'm a bit too old to stalk people now so I suppose I'd better put out a contract...

For years the internet has had a bad name for being a hotbed of cut-and-paste unconfirmed information, but in fact it offers us the ability to do a lot more checking that we were previously able to do

Example: Lyall Watson's book Supernature contained some stuff about pyamids: How they would sharpen razor blades, how they would prevent meat from decaying... And because it was a published book that had obviously gone through editorial scrutiny, it was accepted as fact. It took Mythbusters to do some actual testing to turn up the fact that the author had been publishing anecdotes not evidence.

Sadly though, we tend not go delve too deep into information given us. That's not always such a bad thing, Molly, for example, is going to feel relieved that I'm going to take what she says on trust ...

Edited by Profaitchikenz Haiku
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's something I know about or have experience in or with, I will talk about what I know about it.

If it's something I am not familiar with or am interested in, I'll research it pretty hard. If I plan on really diving into a discussion.

Honestly, the last year in the forums felt more like internet regurgitation than anything, So there really wasn't much to really dive into.. Unless ya just felt like arguing to argue..

 hehehe

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Profaitchikenz Haiku said:

you get the non-sequitur of the year award

My addition of 'do your own plumbing' to the original premise of 'do your own research' reveals a greater problem in societies where most of its participants fulfill specialized roles. These societies can only function when everyone has a certain level of trust in other people's knowledge and skill rather than their own.

A society can not function if too few people trust their bakers, too few trust their plumbers, their journalists, and too few trust their scientists. What is too few? For instance, when a vaccine program requires >80% compliance to prevent that society from collapsing through a pandemic, but fewer than that trust those scientists.

Who's fault is this?

1. People who monetize the practice of spreading misinformation, and their intermediaries, like Facebook (and, yes, YouTube)

2. Sorry to bring him up, but, Vladimir Putin. And a few others like him who work hard to destabilize their 'competing powers' to 'restore' their own.

I think the umbrella term 'societal parasites' for these people would be spot on. But don't use that phrase in the open too much, because part of their strategy is to hijack it and use it against you.

Edited by Arduenn Schwartzman
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nicki minaj cousins balls thing is as funny & ludicrous as the maybe a real or maybe a trolling FB comment last year (cause who can tell what is a joke or not anymore with the craziness going on) about the woman whose husband was forced to wear a mask on a business trip & caught chlamydia…..  that’s not what he caught it from unless the mask was made from worn panties.  🤭🤫🤪 🦠🩲
but seriously it’s like we’ve been plopped down into the movie Idiocracy.

 

 

F4E34BBD-BB13-41C5-BBC8-CE898A13499A.jpeg

Edited by Pixie Kobichenko
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Mollymews said:

from a person named Linda Spadero

did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article?

did you critique each article for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies?

did you scrutinise the sources of each article (author, publisher, funder)?

did you examine the intent of the sources to publish the particular results of each article?

did you follow the trail of references and apply the same critique, scrutiny and examination to them as you did to each article?

did you assemble a random sample of articles both for and against the topic and perform independent statistics trials on the reported results?
 


if we didn't do all of these things then we never did our own research and we probably don't actually know how to do research. What we did was read some articles which accord with our implicit biases and called it proof. Said another way, the only thing we have proofed is that we have implicit biases which we believe to be true

and then to top it off when we realise, after having done actual research, that what we are stating is not true, we say: well! I dunno if it is true or not. I just like to believe that it is

which is fine when the topic is say the existence of life of our avatar when we log off, but beyond this then not so fine

This pretty much invalidates anyone making any kind of statement on the internet. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to do all these things when I worked as a librarian and yeah.. nobody cares. Mostly they just want stuff fast that supports their argument. We'd sneak in some balance and reputable resources just to ease our own consciences. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

The bulk of education isn't focused on discovery, it's focused on getting someone to tick the correct predefined boxes on a test.

Depends on what's being tested.

I'm pretty ambivalent when it comes to assessing how well a Philosophy student has retained knowledge.. by all means head off and "discover".

On the other hand I'd quite like the surgeon about to operate on my heart to be able to tick the "correct predefined box" which represents my left ventricle; rather than go on a voyage of "discovery" around my spleen.

Sometimes, just sometimes, knowledge and facts are important; as is one's ability to demonstrate their appropriate application.

Not so much in the SL Forums of course, where self delusion and hubris almost always carry the day 😀 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Coffee Pancake said:

The bulk of education isn't focused on discovery, it's focused on getting someone to tick the correct predefined boxes on a test.

Lets issue a correction here:

 

The bulk of American education isn't focused on discovery, it's focused on getting someone to tick the correct predefined boxes on a test.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, CaithLynnSayes said:

Lets issue a correction here:

 

The bulk of American education isn't focused on discovery, it's focused on getting someone to tick the correct predefined boxes on a test.

That would be American Public School education..

hehehe

Edited by Ceka Cianci
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Pixie Kobichenko said:

The nicki minaj cousins balls thing is as funny & ludicrous as the maybe a real or maybe a trolling FB comment last year (cause who can tell what is a joke or not anymore with the craziness going on) about the woman whose husband was forced to wear a mask on a business trip & caught chlamydia…..  that’s not what he caught it from unless the mask was made from worn panties.  🤭🤫🤪 🦠🩲
but seriously it’s like we’ve been plopped down into the movie Idiocracy.

Yes I've heard worse, especially in the last year with all those virologist and epidemiology experts coming out of the woodwork everywhere. Time for a different area of expertise now.

d17.thumb.jpg.fd03421dfe55b53d89d0dc245a5c060c.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...