I hope this thread isn't actually about the article I put up, but more accurately on the broader topic of how the article showcases just how idiotically we use research.
People have a tendency to think that just waving studies in your face means that they proved something, or that research in of itself automatically proves something.
Like this article. "A Princeton University study shows that 40 percent of infants in the United States "live in fear or distrust of their parents, and that will translate into aggressiveness, defiance, and hyperactivity as they grow into adults."
Seriously? Really? You're not even going to start to question just how exactly they managed to create a sample size that is large and relevant enough to create a conclusion for the entire country, but also the fact that they somehow managed to interview INFANTS and receive credible information?
The question I wanted to raise is- Is our tendency to take research studies and just wave them around as support harmful? It is one thing to provide the research so that we can see it for ourselves, but another thing to just refer to it as though it's fact. A lot of people do this, not only in articles, but also in real life. I worry that it gives people a false sense of certainty.
Edit- Oh, and of course, the article is a complete piece of trash that doesn't even make sense. But let us ignore that.
I think perspective is important. Research can be vital in proving a point and reduntant results from differing studies can be even more critical. However, perspective is important and understanding the amount of variables that influences a specfic topic is important.
Well, until soft and biological sciences stop not getting published when they confirm the null hypothesis, you will continue to get research with claims that are barely statistical. Also, the state of science reporting in this country to lay people is just awful.
Also, when CERN had the "faster than light" neutrinos, everyone in the physics community immediately asked, "What did they do wrong?" Not, "OMG PHYSICS IS WRONG!" Yet guess how it was reported?
Well, until soft and biological sciences stop not getting published when they confirm the null hypothesis, you will continue to get research with claims that are barely statistical.
I think that your rant on at least biology is unfair. Most research there is actually pretty decently done, but has the same issues that every science has: scientific discoveries get blown up by news organisations all the time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
I would question how they got their results, and then I would track down the study and read it, so that I understood how they got their results.
If I cite an article to support my position, I have probably read it, or at the very least read the abstract and skimmed the article.
I have encountered people like the ones you describe, though, who have clearly not even read the articles they cite. (The example that springs to mind is a discussion on vaccination, in which this person said that scientists had shown that the MMR vaccine caused autism, and cited an Institute of Medicine study that said, basically, the exact opposite.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
This topic reminds me of the storm I saw on Facebook when the Navy announced their sea water fuel thing and all of my liberal friends exploding about how this needs more coverage and declaring the end of big oil...
Some people just dont seem to have the ability or desire to actually look for real facts and will take stories/studies at face value and believe silly headlines like "Navy ends need for big oil and nobody noticed!"
Hah. Yes. That is very relevant. It is a comic of what I am talking about.
Quote from Grant »
I would question how they got their results, and then I would track down the study and read it, so that I understood how they got their results.
If I cite an article to support my position, I have probably read it, or at the very least read the abstract and skimmed the article.
I would be a very happy man if everyone at least did this with whatever research they read.
Quote from Fluffy_Bunny »
This topic reminds me of the storm I saw on Facebook when the Navy announced their sea water fuel thing and all of my liberal friends exploding about how this needs more coverage and declaring the end of big oil...
Some people just dont seem to have the ability or desire to actually look for real facts and will take stories/studies at face value and believe silly headlines like "Navy ends need for big oil and nobody noticed!"
Perhaps they have an unhealthy amount of trust?
But I personally think it's because of biases. Everyone has them, and people are willing to accept evidence that line up with their biases without critical thinking, while those that go against their biases are subject to every analysis that they can think of. And, when it passes them all, they reject it anyways. Because it isn't part of their biases.
It's absurd.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I hope this thread isn't actually about the article I put up, but more accurately on the broader topic of how the article showcases just how idiotically we use research.
People have a tendency to think that just waving studies in your face means that they proved something, or that research in of itself automatically proves something.
Like this article. "A Princeton University study shows that 40 percent of infants in the United States "live in fear or distrust of their parents, and that will translate into aggressiveness, defiance, and hyperactivity as they grow into adults."
Seriously? Really? You're not even going to start to question just how exactly they managed to create a sample size that is large and relevant enough to create a conclusion for the entire country, but also the fact that they somehow managed to interview INFANTS and receive credible information?
The question I wanted to raise is- Is our tendency to take research studies and just wave them around as support harmful? It is one thing to provide the research so that we can see it for ourselves, but another thing to just refer to it as though it's fact. A lot of people do this, not only in articles, but also in real life. I worry that it gives people a false sense of certainty.
Edit- Oh, and of course, the article is a complete piece of trash that doesn't even make sense. But let us ignore that.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174 is relevant.
Also, when CERN had the "faster than light" neutrinos, everyone in the physics community immediately asked, "What did they do wrong?" Not, "OMG PHYSICS IS WRONG!" Yet guess how it was reported?
I think that your rant on at least biology is unfair. Most research there is actually pretty decently done, but has the same issues that every science has: scientific discoveries get blown up by news organisations all the time.
If I cite an article to support my position, I have probably read it, or at the very least read the abstract and skimmed the article.
I have encountered people like the ones you describe, though, who have clearly not even read the articles they cite. (The example that springs to mind is a discussion on vaccination, in which this person said that scientists had shown that the MMR vaccine caused autism, and cited an Institute of Medicine study that said, basically, the exact opposite.)
Some people just dont seem to have the ability or desire to actually look for real facts and will take stories/studies at face value and believe silly headlines like "Navy ends need for big oil and nobody noticed!"
Hah. Yes. That is very relevant. It is a comic of what I am talking about.
I would be a very happy man if everyone at least did this with whatever research they read.
Perhaps they have an unhealthy amount of trust?
But I personally think it's because of biases. Everyone has them, and people are willing to accept evidence that line up with their biases without critical thinking, while those that go against their biases are subject to every analysis that they can think of. And, when it passes them all, they reject it anyways. Because it isn't part of their biases.
It's absurd.