Doing your own research also means being open to the possibility that your hypothesis is incorrect.
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.
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)
All of these things are only valuable if you do not have the technical expertise required to analyse the validity of the conclusions the authors draw from the methods.
“Do your own research” is used to shut up people who are asking for evidence. It marks the end of any sort of productive discussion. Maybe a good response would be to ask “So you don’t have any evidence?”. If the other party doesn’t respond, they look weak, but if they had evidence, they wouldn’t have tried to pull the “Do your own research” bit. When they reply, presumably without any evidence, proceed to ridicule their lack of evidence.
I just say “You didn’t do any research, you watched some guy on YouTube and decided he was correct.”
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.
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.
“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 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.”
You’re just being dismissive and arrogant, like I’m saying. Academia is nothing more than a gatekeeping cult. You’re under the childish assumption that there is “good” and “bad” when those terms are subjective.
Academia is nothing more than a gatekeeping cult.
Got it. Trust memes on Facebook over scientists.
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. Professional researchers are not magically immune to human biases and fallacies, case in point thalidomide, trans fats, “heart healthy” seed oils etc etc.
I think it’s more complex than this. Yes, absolutely, if something works for you personally but it’s not supported by scientific consensus, that makes sense to follow your own research. Health routines, diet, religion, whatever you do in your personal life, especially if you aren’t concerned about whether your neighbors are doing it too. The sentiment of the post applies best to subjects that apply broadly to groups of people, like vaccines, or trans people, or climate change, or even creationism or flat earth. If you aren’t following the scientific consensus, then you may be hurting yourself or others. Yes, science gets things wrong, but it also has drastically improved quality of life for everyone.
I would agree that scientific practice is far from the ideal in the post, but it doesn’t claim that researchers aren’t susceptible to those biases. That is why there are processes in place like peer review.
Peer review isn’t an infallible process, it has been shown to be super susceptible to cronyism for example, and even outside of it churns out a vast array of (mostly) useless unreproducible, or sometimes even entirely fraudulent, research. I don’t even have a problem with the former part, research is actually a lot more tinkering and trial based than some set-in-stone endeavour and it certainly wouldn’t hurt the good Ms Sparado to remember that.
I am paraphrasing the post from memory but it came across extremely gatekeepy and condescending with the “but have you conducted double blind trials like I have?” (or sentiments to that effect) as if those are the only valid ways of conducting research. Not even a slight sign of humility in how much researchers and academics have got wrong themselves and maybe to use that as an example in caution when doing your own research.
All those processes described there (and more, such as double blind experiments, peer reviews and so on) were invented and are used even though it would be less effort to not use them exactly because “professional researchers and academics are blinkered by biases or sometimes have financial motives to publish certain things” and those in that domain recognized it and concluded they had to do create tools to clean up their sources of those things as much as possible.
And, guess what, people who are NOT professional researchers and academics, also often “are blinkered by biases or sometimes have financial motives to publish certain things” (in fact certain groups of those people, such as politicians, are almost totally driven by money and biases in what they say and write) and those very same processes also work for filtering biased and money-driven writings and speeches of people who aren’t in Science.
You seen, what you got in that post was a box of tools to enable you to validate your sources, any sources, and your response was raging against being given tools by going “whatabout scientists”.
One can only conclude that you like your sources with “biases and published with financial motives”.
