'Do your own research / I do my own research' has become code for conspiracy theory followers

[Thunglom]

I see a lot of people using the word "RESEARCH"

basically they are using Google - and to varying degrees of competence.

What most people need to do is to learn the difference between "search" and "research"

 

[ozimoron]

54 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

I see a lot of people using the word "RESEARCH"

basically they are using Google - and to varying degrees of competence.

What most people need to do is to learn the difference between "search" and "research"

 

Scientists use google too. They learn from what others researched, just like the rest of us.

[Thunglom]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Scientists use google too. They learn from what others researched, just like the rest of us.

You don't seem to understand the holes in that argument. It is a false syllogism.

Just because a scientist may use Google , it doesn't mean that is the ONLY way they research or a COMPLETE means of research.

Research involves the use of primary secondary and tertiary sources.

Just like a phone book, google can have it's uses but you need to be able to analyse what you find and what you are doing with it.

Unfortunately most people who use Google search not research.

You also need access to peers over te net which aren't available through Google if you are truly researching a particular field of science.

It is also fair to say that most people who use Google are unaware of te limits of their own researching abilities - it is a learned skill.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

You don't seem to understand the holes in that argument. It is a false syllogism.

Just because a scientist may use Google , it doesn't mean that is the ONLY way they research or a CO<PLETE means of research.

Research involves the use of primary secondary and tertiary sources.

Just like a phone book, google can have it's uses but you need to be able to analyse what you find and what you are doing with it.

Unfortunately most people who use Google search not research

Scientists, like all of us, use every resource available to them. MOST scientific work builds on the research of others. I'm saying that all these antagonists here seem to want to exclude what they read on the net as useful or valid. That's far from true.

[Thunglom]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Scientists, like all of us, use every resource available to them. MOST scientific work builds on the research of others.

As said, research is a learned skill.

[Thunglom]

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

just like the rest of us.

the is just a weird generalisation - what point are you trying to make?

 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

As said, research is a learned skill.

Searching and researching are not mutually exclusive. Your statement here is self evident, trite and meaningless in any context. Not that you attempted to even provide context. Stop trolling.

[Thunglom]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Searching and researching are not mutually exclusive. Your statement here is self evident, trite and meaningless in any context.

As said you need to learn the different between search and research. nothing to do with exclusion - they are different. anyone can "Google" - very few have the tools to cary out research.

There is an underlying problem that people don't know what research entails and think that just "Googling" is in some way search.

Research goes back millennia, long before Google, probably form the time of the first books or travellers

 

[ozimoron]

13 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

As said you need to learn the different between search and research. nothing to do with exclusion - they are different. anyone can "Google" - very few have the tools to cary out research.

 

Rubbish. Get off your high horse. Google and the internet have propelled the rate at which we can learn and research to all time highs. Previously we relied on hard copy books, now every book and every piece of public research carried out is available online. Google (and other search engines) is great resource for learning, education and research.

[Thunglom]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Rubbish. Get off your high horse.

I would find the hard to define as any kind of answer, just a clumsy ad hominem - have you been drinking?

[ozimoron]

I spend a lot of time writing computer code. My speed and efficiency are about a thousand times better now than before we had internet and search engines. I'm sure every scientist feels the same way. Even learning about coronavirus and virtually every fact and fiction known to man is easily available on the internet. Rejecting the internet as a valuable learning tool is akin to burning books. It goes without saying that one needs to be critical and evaluate what one reads but likewise there is not shortage of reliable information critiquing everything of consequence that is ever written. That may take the form of peer review or fact checking, two indispensable tools when doing your own research. Not doing your own research does not mean rejecting other peoples research, far from it. Not doing your own research means getting your information from unqualified sources (bad actors) and unreliable sources such as social media.

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I do, I am myself an expert in my field.

 

I believe people should use their intelligence to make their decisions and that all expert viewpoints should be heard, not just those who go along with the doxa.

Even though these "experts" you trust have repeatedly gotten it wrong? And even though most of those "experts" are no such thing? Can you share with us the names of these experts and their track record? Can you cite some specific evidence that supports their case?

[Thunglom]

23 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Even though these "experts" you trust have repeatedly gotten it wrong? And even though most of those "experts" are no such thing? Can you share with us the names of these experts and their track record? Can you cite some specific evidence that supports their case?

I think giving value to the old expert actually precludes you from any argument. As Said it is an informal fallacy often just used as an ad hominem

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed. 

Continue and face a suspension.

 

[rattlesnake]

3 hours ago, Thunglom said:

"Expert" is such a cliché and usually a sign that a participant in a discussion has run out of argument themselves so attempts this as an ad hominem…

 

Expert - a reverse fallacious appeal to authority, often used by people as ad hominem to attack the messenger rather than the message, or simply as a tool for “sealioning”.

 

People without any argument seem to believe that they can discredit anyone who says something they don’t agree with or didn’t know, by suggesting they aren’t or should be an “expert” or asking them why they think they are an “expert”. As if any opinion other than an “experts” must automatically be invalid…

 

Common examples of why people  believe they are experts themselves…..

Healthcare, Teaching and education and Road safety seem to be prime examples of this – 

·      Because they went to hospital, they are  be “experts” on healthcare

·      because they went to school, they are “experts” on education

·      because they can drive a car, they are “experts” on road safety.

 

An expert is someone who has acquired significant experience and knowledge in a given field through practice.

[rattlesnake]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Even though these "experts" you trust have repeatedly gotten it wrong? And even though most of those "experts" are no such thing? 

The mere fact that they are not invited to debate (and only refuted and slandered in their absence) proves how fallacious this whole process is. To debunk a detractor's ideas, you should debate them publicly and face to face.

Last time I shared the names of the scientists who challenge the Covid narrative, I got a temporary ban from this site, which says it all, I have nothing more to add. 

[ozimoron]

9 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The mere fact that they are not invited to debate (and only refuted and slandered in their absence) proves how fallacious this whole process is. To debunk a detractor's ideas, you should debate them publicly and face to face.

Last time I shared the names of the scientists who challenge the Covid narrative, I got a temporary ban from this site, which says it all, I have nothing more to add. 

Why give them oxygen when their evidence can and has been widely proved false? What says it all is that links to their work are not allowed. We don't need to debate discredited actors for ever and ever just because their opinions are dissenting. Not every climate change denier or vaccine skeptic gets censored by the MSM and responsible social media, just those acting in bad faith. I've said it before and it's worth repeating, lies don't need to get equal time with the truth.

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The mere fact that they are not invited to debate (and only refuted and slandered in their absence) proves how fallacious this whole process is. To debunk a detractor's ideas, you should debate them publicly and face to face.

Last time I shared the names of the scientists who challenge the Covid narrative, I got a temporary ban from this site, which says it all, I have nothing more to add. 

John Oliver once addressed this issue. He assembled a group of 100 people and had them wear lab coats. So he had 3 deniers dressed in lab coats on one side and 97 proponents on the other. The point being, of course, that giving equal time to such an extreme minority viewpoint, is, in effect, to make it seem like there is a significant divide in the climatological community. There isn't. in fact, the latest peer-reviewed study of climatological reports shows that over 99.9% of all climatological research that address human-caused climate change, either accepts it as being a fact or provides new evidence to support it.

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

If John Oliver were to repeat that bit today he would need to have over 999 proponents against just 1 denier!

As for getting banned, I suspect that you weren't citing actual climatologists but dubious characters from other fields who weighed in on the questions. Why don't you PM me the names of these person?

 

 

[TKDfella]

12 hours ago, placeholder said:

Why cooling cycles exactly are you referring to? 

The Earth goes through natural cycles both warming and cooling (inter-glacial/glacial) due to various 'wobbles' and position (Milankovitch cycles) and also the Sun's activity. This is all part part of Climate Change and every planet in the S.S. goes through a natural CC to a greater/lesser degree.

Just how much life on Earth contributes to the process (global  warming) is the debatable point...all life has an effect on an environment but whether that effect is beneficial, detrimental or neutral isn't easy to prove. This situation is vulnerable to conspiracy theories

[Catoni]

On 12/11/2021 at 4:40 AM, ozimoron said:

A conspiracy and a conspiracy theory are not the same thing.

Well, we have the theory of evolution, and the theory of relativity. And the theory of gravity, quantum theory, string theory, Big Bang theory etc., etc…. ad infinitum. 
  The word “theory” does not mean “lie”. 

[Catoni]

On 12/11/2021 at 6:22 AM, The Hammer2021 said:

Rather stating the obvious.

The word “theory” does not mean “lie”.   Neither does the word “conspiracy” 

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

The Earth goes through natural cycles both warming and cooling (inter-glacial/glacial) due to various 'wobbles' and position (Milankovitch cycles) and also the Sun's activity. This is all part part of Climate Change and every planet in the S.S. goes through a natural CC to a greater/lesser degree.

Just how much life on Earth contributes to the process (global  warming) is the debatable point...all life has an effect on an environment but whether that effect is beneficial, detrimental or neutral isn't easy to prove. This situation is vulnerable to conspiracy theories

Be nice if you actually included a link. Moderators have a way of deleting unlinked evidence.

First off, no climatologist denies that Malenkovich cycles influence climate.  But that is utterly irrelevant to the situation at hand.  Changes in temperature due to the Malenkovich cycles occur relatively slowly. The sharp global rise in temperature that's currently being experienced is unprecedented. And that fact that it was predicted by relatively simple climate models based on CO2 percentage in the atmosphere shows just how significant human activity is. And, no, it's no longer debatable about the influence of humans on climate change.

As for the Sun's influence, if it were responsible for the current warming, we would expect to see the entire atmosphere be heating up. But that's not what's happening. As predicted by even the earliest climate models, the lower atmosphere is getting warmer while the upper atmosphere is getting cooler. That only makes sense if greenhouse gases are slowing the return of heat to the upper atmosphere.

What's more, hypotheses that the sun is responsible for climate change, actually posited that lower solar activity would promote cooling. Yet the sun has been in a series of very low cycles of activity and the reality is, that despite that, warming has accelerated.

 

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, Catoni said:

Well, we have the theory of evolution, and the theory of relativity. And the theory of gravity, quantum theory, string theory, Big Bang theory etc., etc…. ad infinitum. 
  The word “theory” does not mean “lie”. 

Quote

The word “theory” does not mean “lie”.   Neither does the word “conspiracy”

 

Breaking down phrases into single words to remove context is not helpful. "Conspiracy" does not mean a lie, nor does "theory". However "Conspiracy theory" is always a lie, without exception.

 

Important to note. Not all conspiracies are conspiracy theories.

[Catoni]

On 12/11/2021 at 8:17 AM, placeholder said:

 

Even those definitions of conspiracy that don't invoke secrecy, and they are always secondaty, specify that members of a conspiracy are working together. It's not enough to say that they share common goals, but rather that they are actively working together. Since the lunatic right regularly accuses all sort of disparate parties of working together, and since these parties deny it, of necessity that means that they are working in secret. 

Wasn’t it the lunatic left that accused Trump of “conspiring” with Russia?  The “Russian Collusion” Conspiracy Theory?  
  It appears that the lunatic left are also into “conspiracy theories”.  

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, Catoni said:

Wasn’t it the lunatic left that accused Trump of “conspiring” with Russia?  The “Russian Collusion” Conspiracy Theory?  
  It appears that the lunatic left are also into “conspiracy theories”.  

That wasn't a conspiracy theory. That's an alleged actual conspiracy. It will be proved one way or the other very soon.

 

Conspiracy theories involve many people over a long period of time. The Trump / Russia conspiracy is neither of those.

 

examples:

 

Climate change is a hoax perpetrated by tens of thousands of scientists on lucrative government grants - conspiracy theory.

 

The moon landing is a hoax - conspiracy theory

 

The Malaysian Airlines MH370 was hijacked by the Pakistani secret service and hidden in a hanger on Diego Garcia - conspiracy theory.

 

The JFK assassination was a CIA plot - alleged actual conspiracy.

[LarrySR]

1 hour ago, Catoni said:

Wasn’t it the lunatic left that accused Trump of “conspiring” with Russia?  The “Russian Collusion” Conspiracy Theory?  
  It appears that the lunatic left are also into “conspiracy theories”.  

One can always spot the sadly misinformed Fox viewers in the comments. 
For your information: According to the Republican led Senate investigation into Russian interference that is published online:

-Trump campaign associates failed to disclose or lied to the FBI about 147 contacts with Russians. 
-Trumps campaign manager flew to Europe and handed confidential election data to a Russian agent that used it to micro target voters with disinformation. 
-Trump asked for and accepted Russian influence. 
-Trump obstructed the FBI investigation 10 times. 
-Trump refused to be interviewed and then lied on his written answers to investigators. 
-Trump campaign staff boasted the Russians had hacked DNC communications and were using it to support the Trump campaign…. and that initially kicked off the investigation. 

Now you know. 

[LarrySR]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Be nice if you actually included a link. Moderators have a way of deleting unlinked evidence.

First off, no climatologist denies that Malenkovich cycles influence climate.  But that is utterly irrelevant to the situation at hand.  Changes in temperature due to the Malenkovich cycles occur relatively slowly. The sharp global rise in temperature that's currently being experienced is unprecedented. And that fact that it was predicted by relatively simple climate models based on CO2 percentage in the atmosphere shows just how significant human activity is. And, no, it's no longer debatable about the influence of humans on climate change.

As for the Sun's influence, if it were responsible for the current warming, we would expect to see the entire atmosphere be heating up. But that's not what's happening. As predicted by even the earliest climate models, the lower atmosphere is getting warmer while the upper atmosphere is getting cooler. That only makes sense if greenhouse gases are slowing the return of heat to the upper atmosphere.

What's more, hypotheses that the sun is responsible for climate change, actually posited that lower solar activity would promote cooling. Yet the sun has been in a series of very low cycles of activity and the reality is, that despite that, warming has accelerated.

 

It really doesn’t matter what the goofball deniers that watch Fox think about climate change. 
Every country on the planet (except Syria) are now on board with the scientific data and they are taking action. 
 

[BritManToo]

1 minute ago, LarrySR said:

It really doesn’t matter what the goofball deniers that watch Fox think about climate change. 
Every country on the planet (except Syria) are now on board with the scientific data and they are taking action. 
 

Doing my own research on sea level rises due to climate change .........

Obama and Bezos both buy Hawaii beachfront homes, didn't they read about sea level change.

Looks like a 6" rise would sink Obama's new multi million home.

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Doing my own research on sea level rises due to climate change .........

Obama and Bezos both buy Hawaii beachfront homes, didn't they read about sea level change.

Looks like a 6" rise would sink Obama's new multi million home.

 

I believe I read your report in "The Journal of It Looks Like" 

 

[The Hammer2021]

3 hours ago, Catoni said:

The word “theory” does not mean “lie”.   Neither does the word “conspiracy” 

Theory means unproven. Conspiracy means hidden plan. Add the two words together and you usually get nonesense aimed at ignorant people