"do your own research" - examining this argument from a different angle

[Mark Quayle]

This is a dangerous mindset.
Again, don’t fall into the trap of intellectual nihilism, fallibilism, or Descartes’ “Evil Demon Problem”.

This radical skepticism and academic skepticism becomes dangerous when placed alongside political nihilism.

Not that I fit your descriptions/ labels, but it is more dangerous to believe what is said/printed simply because it wears the label 'news'.

 

[SamanthaAnastasia]

Not that I fit your descriptions/ labels, but it is more dangerous to believe what is said/printed simply because it wears the label 'news'.

Depends on the source.
Also, intelligence agencies aggregate from all news sources. From far left to far right of the bias spectrum, even state propaganda.
By viewing all news sources, you can get a clearer and more complete picture of the truth. You are not likely to get the complete and whole truth from just one source (it’s also why in court many witnesses are questioned and there is not just one source of evidence).
It’s what the CIA and military intel does.

To say it’s dangerous to believe what is said in the news or in print just because it says it’s news is cynical.

It depends on the source of the “news”.
Of course it’s dangerous to believe the tabloid stating “Bat boy lives!”.

I find it hilarious that many people who are talking about this cannot tell reputable digital news vs false information yet they are also eating up the 24 hour news media in which the broadcasters are just stating their opinion (fyi the real news is on the ticker at the bottom) which isn’t news.
They know that tabloids are false information yet they can’t tell what are digital tabloids or “clickbait”. It’s ridiculous.

 

[renniks]

There's another thread leveraging this article
These four words are helping spread vaccine misinformation - CNN

...but I wanted to look at it from a different angle and with a slightly different tone by examining the practicality of managing public health outcomes based on opinions of non-experts "doing their own research", but with a subject that's not as highly politically charged, and not subject to any sort of mandates or restrictions or even the slightest inkling of government force, or with nearly as much of the vitriol people have for the topic of vaccines.

That topic: "Human Nutrition".

Specifically, the divide between Vegan and Keto advocates.

Mind you, I don't follow either dietary practice, and I'm not advocating for or trash-talking either one of these, that's not the point of the exercise.

I specifically picked this one because both factions have a high percentage of advocates who fancy themselves "well researched" and "well learned" on the topic of health and nutrition. If you know any advocates from either of these camps, you know they pride themselves on reading a lot of content, consuming a lot of documentaries from their favorite providers, and even attending conferences and lectures "Like KetoCon or VegFest" to listen to people with an MD or PhD speak on the topic.

If you know any die-hard vegans, they've well versed in the studies and writings of Dr. Gregor or Dr. Garth Davis or Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn...if you know any die-hard Keto followers, they're all well-versed on the papers by people like Dr. Paul Saladino or Bart Kay PhD.


How do two groups of people, who've all spent huge amounts of time "doing their own research" come up with such wildly different conclusions on the same subject?

There's only a couple possible conclusions
- One side got it really right, and the other got it really wrong
- Both sides got a few things right, and a few things wrong
- Both sides have specifically chosen the research that fits their ideology, and have chosen to focus exclusively on that and ignore all the other research.


How that applies more broadly, and specifically to the topic of sentiments of "parents know what's best for protecting their kids from a disease" or "a person knows what's best for their own health and is well qualified to make those decisions"...is that both of those sentiments fall flat.

There are several non-controversial, non-polarized topics where non-experts have "done their own research on it", and that research may have come a place of complete sincerity and didn't start off biased at all, but have come up with two nearly polar opposite conclusions on the topic.

How much weight should the "findings" of non-experts be given when it comes to something serious? (serious as in, impacts others and not just the person, themselves) IE: if two people have a difference in conclusion between Xbox vs. Playstation, that's largely inconsequential. However, if two people have a difference of opinion on the best way to address the apartment building that's about collapse...that's a different story, and it may be worth considering giving more merit to the "non-expert" opinion that happens to line up with the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of engineers seem to agree with.

Or: both sides choose what has worked for them. But I noticed a lot of vegans switch sides and become advocates for meat.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Look.
I’m a librarian. You need to do your own research.

The caveat is where you get your information.
There is tons of misinformation and poor resources out there. Information literacy is a vital skill in regard to researching. Internet and digital literacy is critical when researching online.

People who claim that they “do their own research” or for you to “do your own research” do not in fact “do their own research” with reputable, respectable, well researched resources. Some cannot even provide sources for their claims besides Facebook.

That's why I used the analogy of the "Keto vs. Vegan" advocates.

If you've debated with either, it's clear that both have gotten at least some of their information from reputable studies.

People from both factions seem to have their "go-to" studies from NIH or PubMed that they have bookmarked and ready to go, and many have clearly spent a lot of time doing some self-study into the topic, but come up with nearly polar opposite conclusions.


My point was that even if we assumed everyone was attempting to be diligent about their research, and not intentionally trying to cherry pick or get things from biased or sketchy sources, there's only so much faith a non-expert can put into "their own research"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Or: both sides choose what has worked for them. But I noticed a lot of vegans switch sides and become advocates for meat.

The point wasn't to debate the merits of either diet...that was just an example of a not politically polarized topic where you have two different camps of people "doing their own research", and most trying to be diligent and objective about it, but coming up with wildly different conclusions.

Meaning
A) one sides REALLY wrong
B) both sides are half wrong

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Your first paragraph after the link shows your bias, or at least, your limits of information. There are experts on both sides. Many so-called 'experts'. But only one side's experts are recognized as such by the media; the rest are ignored or poo-pooed. Just saying...

But we're not talking about "experts", this thread was specifically pertaining to non-experts and people "doing their own research".

Within the realm of experts, it's a totally different conversation, and that's where the aspect of scientific consensus comes into play.

And while there have been some times where the scientific minority was proven right, it's not the norm and is a statistical outlier.

Most of the time, if 96% of well-researched, well-trained people in a field come up with the same conclusion after hundreds and thousands of tests...that's usually the winning side.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

But we're not talking about "experts", this thread was specifically pertaining to non-experts and people "doing their own research".

Within the realm of experts, it's a totally different conversation, and that's where the aspect of scientific consensus comes into play.

And while there have been some times where the scientific minority was proven right, it's not the norm and is a statistical outlier.

Most of the time, if 96% of well-researched, well-trained people in a field come up with the same conclusion after hundreds and thousands of tests...that's usually the winning side.

The public's own research can be as basic as trying to discover who has vested interests in mass vaccination and mass testing. Are you suggesting that people shouldn't try and uncover the money trail behind all of this?

Conflicts of interest among the UK government’s covid-19 advisers

Biden’s Inner Circle Maintains Close Ties to Vaccine Makers, Disclosures Reveal

Robert F. Kennedy Jr says Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates stand to profit from COVID-19 vaccine

Conflicts of Interest and COVID

 

[renniks]

The point wasn't to debate the merits of either diet...that was just an example of a not politically polarized topic where you have two different camps of people "doing their own research", and most trying to be diligent and objective about it, but coming up with wildly different conclusions.

Meaning
A) one sides REALLY wrong
B) both sides are half wrong

I choose B.

 

[hedrick]

A non expert is not in a position to make actual judgements on their own. What they can do is try to judge who to believe. Generally I’d look for experts from a variety of backgrounds. If there is a consensus I follow it. If not, I try to understand why.

At some point I may have to make a decision between different principles. With diet, I think a consensus view would be skeptical of any of those special diets. In Bublical interpretation, there’s a division between those who accept inerrancy and those who don’t. Both have experts. There I have to look at what supports each and the kinds of results, and make a decision on approach. As a result when doing exegesis of specific passage I will take into account the underlying viewpoint.

In matters of health there isn’t that kind of division. Actual experts working within a controversial ideology exist, but aren’t as common as in Biblical studies. There are definitely questions about some drugs, due to how research is done. But the amount of work and variety of backgrounds with Covid make those kinds of problem less likely. The bigger problem is that on some questions it has taken time to build up necessary data, and there are still gaps. But some issues are pretty clear.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In matters of health there isn’t that kind of division.

It would depend on the health related topic...

On the topic of vaccines (particularly the Covid vaccines or MMR vaccines), there isn't a huge division and a pretty solid consensus among the experts.

There are other topics (relating to health) where there is some division.

For instance, the topic I brought up earlier (Dieting approaches and nutrition), you can find plenty of doctors on both sides of that one.

Also, on the topic of marijuana usage, there's somewhat of a divide in the medical community.

My main point was that "average Joe doing his own research" isn't going to be a credible resource.

When you have a topic, where you can find credentialed people on both sides of the debate, there's no shortage of citations and studies a person could find to support their own opinion.

Even if you just look a the topic of egg consumption, you can find multiple peer reviewed studies (on both sides of the fence) on the PubMed/NIH site.

It'd be easy enough for a pro-egg or anti-egg "armchair researcher" to produce multiple peer-reviewed studies to support their own position.

Obviously highly polarizing topics throw a wrench into things...as it introduces ulterior motives.

 

[SamanthaAnastasia]

That's why I used the analogy of the "Keto vs. Vegan" advocates.

If you've debated with either, it's clear that both have gotten at least some of their information from reputable studies.

People from both factions seem to have their "go-to" studies from NIH or PubMed that they have bookmarked and ready to go, and many have clearly spent a lot of time doing some self-study into the topic, but come up with nearly polar opposite conclusions.


My point was that even if we assumed everyone was attempting to be diligent about their research, and not intentionally trying to cherry pick or get things from biased or sketchy sources, there's only so much faith a non-expert can put into "their own research"

Yes, I love that you used that for an example.

Most things aren’t black and white.

Well, even experts come to conclusions.

For certain examples (like keto vs vegan) the conclusions are that the experts are divided. So it then is up to the layperson to make their own decision on what is best for them. It could be as simple as “I just don’t like meat” or “I like meat” to something more “scientific”. If that makes sense

idk I haven’t finished my coffee yet lol

 

[NxNW]

Just as they do with every opportunity to those who don't toe the line. And ignore those they can't disprove. (If there's no pictures (no reports in the media) it didn't happen, doesn't exist.)

Now you're making up stuff again.