Are we really informed? — Conducting proper research
In today’s Medium article I will write about today’s ongoing global problem caused by individuals seeking out information from non-scientific and other sources. Also shows how people are NOT doing proper research, thus reaffirming ones own confirmation bias. Without further ado, let’s get into the article.
➡ What is PROPER research?
One quote from a study on NCBI states the following — “Scientific research is the research performed by applying systematic and constructed scientific methods to obtain, analyze, and interpret data.” [1] The first problem we have with this via individuals doing personal research is understanding the data, to begin with. Before Interpreting the data, many Individuals will have a form of logical bias, which will invalidate the links they have collected.
Before one even has scientific data in front of them, you have to know what topic you’re looking into, refine the topic take notes and/or quotes from reputable sources (not Bitchute videos for example) and finally cite the sources for reference. [2]
Linda Gamble Spadaro, a licensed mental health counsellor in Florida actually tells us what the fundamentals are for proper, informed and non-biased research — “You didn’t research anything and it is highly probable you don’t know how to do so.
Did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No?
Did you at least take each article one by one and look into the source (that would be the author, publisher and funder), then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies?
Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of references and apply the same source of scrutiny to them?
No? Then you didn’t…research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little or no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that jived with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subconsciously applied your emotional filters and called it proof.” [3]
References: [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5491675/
[2] https://collegeinfogeek.com/how-to-do-research/
[3] https://www.facebook.com/hellandearth/photos/a.552263151555314/4029114567203471/
➡ What is NOT proper informed research?
When research is conducted within 2 hours on a search engine, such as DuckDuckGo (an AVs favourite) all would do is cement someone’s personal biases on something you THINK helps, but doesn’t. Research is NOT looking at WordPress websites, watching Bitchute/Rumble videos, scrolling through something on your FB timeline, that person told you, personal experiences, anecdotal evidence and so on, as you get the picture by now.
Reputable sources for scientific evidence to cite from are as followed: Pubmed [1], MedBase [2], Google Scholar [3] and many others, even then you STILL have to understand, interpret the data, know the study is relevant to the topic and without biases etc. This is only the tip of the iceberg essentially.
References: [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2245401/
[3] https://scholar.google.com/
➡️ How to spot pseudoscience links from scientific sources?
It's getting harder every day to spot deepfake videos [1], however pseudoscientific evidence is a lot easier to spot and scrutinise.
Your first line of defence for spotting dodgy pseudoscience sources you may ask? Well, click the link, if the title is too misleading, it’s a telltale sign of pseudoscience, especially if the link is using too much emotional language.
One of the best things about science is you can be critical and scrutinise studies, authors of pseudoscientific articles do not expect the typical anti-vaccine laymen to look through the citations let alone a study, so it’s easier for these authors to manipulate wording to hide disapproving conclusions.
Always check the source and/or platform it’s hosted on, this is the biggest sign going that rings alarm bells of pseudoscience and logical fallacies. Video Sites like Rumble, BrandNewTube and Bitchute are all too common in using deceptive wording, manipulated emotional speeches and little to no evidence-based information backing up claims made in videos.
If at any time you doubt the information, sources, articles and other things you can quickly consult experts in the field that allay problems and scepticism you may have, or simply using Fact Checkers can help as well. Sites such as FactCheck.org [2], Snopes [3] and probably the best one out there Reuters [4].
References: [1] https://us.norton.com/internetsecurity-emerging-threats-how-to-spot-deepfakes.html
[2] https://www.factcheck.org/
[3] https://www.snopes.com/
[4] https://mobile.reuters.com/fact-check
➡️ Logical Biases
💥 Confirmation bias
A lovely definition of what confirmation bias is — “connotes the seeking or interpreting of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations, or a hypothesis in hand” [1]
Now the problem with this sort of bias in research is that any information not supporting their ideas or beliefs is disregarded [2].
💥 Interpretive bias
The book “Social Anxiety (3rd Edition, 2014) tells us what this bias is — “online interpretation biases may affect immediate processing and reactions while an individual is immersed in a social situation, whereas offline biases may affect post-event processing and decisions regarding whether to enter future social situations” [3]
Interpretative biases can massively affect research outcomes as well, which is why it’s been paramount for experts to utilise critical appraisal skills more often. [4]
These are two of the many cognitive biases [5] out there that people have when conducting their own research, there are many to go through so this may be another article another day.
References: [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
[2] https://catalogofbias.org/biases/confirmation-bias/
[3] Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In R. G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 69–93). The Guilford Press.
[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126323/
[5] https://methods.sagepub.com/reference/encyc-of-case-study-research/n57.xml
➡️ Conclusion
So next time you come to debate someone else or conduct personal research on a scientific subject (such as vaccines for example), just think — “did I do my research and am I properly informed”, because the conclusion one can come to in doing improper research is false conclusions and biases in information gathering. Or just leave the research to the experts, they’re trained at this sort of thing.
💥 Thanks for reading, Lawrence. Please consider a small contribution, in the form of a beer as all articles are created in my small amount of spare time: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/LawrenceRob