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

[GrandPapillon]

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

There will always be one side that possible is more right than the other! 

 

I believe it is more about choosing side on who you believe more, who will benefit you more, and what your social circle thinks. You have to choose between Fox News and New York times as one example. 

 

YouTubers who call themselves Dr but never was a Dr in the field they claim their expertise? Who do you believe? A fake Dr with false claims or science backed up by government? 

I disagree, even a broken clock can be right at least twice a day :)

 

each side will have valid arguments, we just choose to ignore them

 

even FauxNews get it right sometimes, and the Washington Post got it wrong many times (like in 2003 with their unconditional support for Iraq war)

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

But still, is Obama born in Usa or not? That is what we call distraction, covid19 is that a real thing or distraction? 

Still wondering why Obama bought a beach front property.

After all he knows the seas are rising and it'll be underwater soon!

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Is it a pandemic ... what is the new definition of.  % of infected and or dying, and what # / % of, now qualifies as a pandemic.

 

Did they change that as they did vaccine to fit their agenda ?

 

Strangely, during this pandemic, I still only know 1 person, personally, that has had a confirmed case of covid.  Actually infected 1 year ago, and just found out last week, as he posted a photo on his FB.  Didn't even mention it when he was sick a year ago ... ????

Aren't you the guy who lives in an isolated village upcountry who rarely has any contact with anyone and therefore doesn't feel the need to get vaccinated?

 

I live in the NT in Australia which has only recently had it's first cases. Unsurprisingly I don't know anybody who has had the virus either. It seems that the entire world's MSM media is ion on a huge conspiracy to exaggerate the case numbers. Even China. "Go figure".

[KhunLA]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Aren't you the guy who lives in an isolated village upcountry who rarely has any contact with anyone and therefore doesn't feel the need to get vaccinated?

If I lived in Krung Thep, I still wouldn't get vaccinated. 

 

Yea, it's down-country, as whole amphur has < 40k residents, so smalls-ville.

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Still wondering why Obama bought a beach front property.

After all he knows the seas are rising and it'll be underwater soon!

So, everybody who buys a beach front property knows that sea level rises are fake? It's beyond comprehension that Obama might buy a beach front property that might be under water in 100 years? Sea level is rising at about 4mm a year IIRC. Although I did post an article which claimed that it might increase drastically soon.

[BritManToo]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

So, everybody who buys a beach front property knows that sea level rises are fake? It's beyond comprehension that Obama might buy a beach front property that might be under water in 100 years? Sea level is rising at about 4mm a year IIRC. Although I did post an article which claimed that it might increase drastically soon.

I though the climate change 'scientists' were claiming NY would be underwater in the next 10 years?

If it's gonna take 100 years, why would any of us care about it, we'll be long gone by then.

Maybe we should all start worrying about 'peak oil' again.

[LarrySR]

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

All US government military employee's who had signed non-disclosure agreements.

PS. 'allegedly' flown to the moon.

U Huh. 400,000 people and thousands of companies that participated in the moon landings have kept the secret for over 50 years.... but you know the truth. Well, you and Alex Jones that is.  LOL

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, LarrySR said:

U Huh. 400,000 people and thousands of companies that participated in the moon landings have kept the secret for over 50 years.... but you know the truth. Well, you and Alex Jones that is.  LOL

I don't know 'The Truth' but it's out there somewhere.

Also, "Trust No One".

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

I don't know 'The Truth' but it's out there somewhere.

Also, "Trust No One".

It's called Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is usually the right one and that is that moon landings were real.

 

You never attempted to explain how video signals could be received in Australia or are they in on the scam?

[BritManToo]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It's called Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is usually the right one and that is that moon landings were real.

According to those rules, the world is flat and the moon landing never happened.

PS. I never explain anything to anyone, unless they're paying me.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

According to those rules, the world is flat and the moon landing never happened.

PS. I never explain anything to anyone, unless they're paying me.

What a nice defense. Make absolutely ridiculous and impossible claims and then refuse to support them because nobody is paying you, lol.

 

There is a preponderance of evidence that the world is not flat and the moon landings did occur, hence Occam's razor suggests they did occur. Your either really trolling people here or you have religious like believe in the impossible.

 

Is every video and personal account of people looking at the Earth from space faked?

[BritManToo]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

What a nice defense. Make absolutely ridiculous and impossible claims and then refuse to support them because nobody is paying you, lol.

I think you'll find personal opinions are allowed on the forum.

Whereas, posting information counter to forum policy is a banning offense.

[Hummin]

23 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I don't know 'The Truth' but it's out there somewhere.

Also, "Trust No One".

Without trust, no faith, no free thought,  no life

[TKDfella]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

It's called Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is usually the right one and that is that moon landings were real.

 

You never attempted to explain how video signals could be received in Australia or are they in on the scam?

I think someone here may be able to help my lapse in memory about an American TV program...I can't remember its name. I'm sure someone here will remember, at least I hope so ????. Each episode was about investigating some phenomena and there aim was to try to reproduce (using modern equipment) whatever it was. Sometimes it was about 'ghostly' sounds/sightings or reported UFO etc. The idea was that if they could reproduce the apparent phenomena then a hoax had to be considered a possibility. If memory serves just about the last episode I saw (some years ago now) was about the Moon landing and the pictures that were received and put on TV. They did the 'buggy' trials and they found that they could reproduce the soil raising skids and some other things. I think the final test was the dropping of a wrench or large spanner which they did reproduce also, that is, according to their standards. I remember thinking 'oh dear, the Moon Landing deniers will have a field day with this'. However, to my surprise their conclusion at the end was that even they could reproduce seen (on TV) effects, they said a hoax was not possible though they never explained why. I've always wondered about that because it broke their pattern of 'if reproducible then possible hoax'.

Perhaps I remember incorrectly

 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

I think someone here may be able to help my lapse in memory about an American TV program...I can't remember its name. I'm sure someone here will remember, at least I hope so ????. Each episode was about investigating some phenomena and there aim was to try to reproduce (using modern equipment) whatever it was. Sometimes it was about 'ghostly' sounds/sightings or reported UFO etc. The idea was that if they could reproduce the apparent phenomena then a hoax had to be considered a possibility. If memory serves just about the last episode I saw (some years ago now) was about the Moon landing and the pictures that were received and put on TV. They did the 'buggy' trials and they found that they could reproduce the soil raising skids and some other things. I think the final test was the dropping of a wrench or large spanner which they did reproduce also, that is, according to their standards. I remember thinking 'oh dear, the Moon Landing deniers will have a field day with this'. However, to my surprise their conclusion at the end was that even they could reproduce seen (on TV) effects, they said a hoax was not possible though they never explained why. I've always wondered about that because it broke their pattern of 'if reproducible then possible hoax'.

Perhaps I remember incorrectly

 

So the number of people who need to keep silent for 50 years to sustain this hoax apparently keeps growing.

[LarrySR]

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

So the number of people who need to keep silent for 50 years to sustain this hoax apparently keeps growing.

I met a real crackpot in Pattaya and he was a moon landing denier too. 
Every time an old astronaut passed away he thought NASA killed him off because they were about to spill the beans. Lol. 

[TKDfella]

29 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

According to those rules, the world is flat and the moon landing never happened.

PS. I never explain anything to anyone, unless they're paying me.

Hmmm, actually that isn't quite correct. A flat Earth cannot be understood under current knowledge of planetary formation and requires such hefty modifications that it wouldn't be the simplest explanation. For example, one possible explanation for a 'flat planetoid' would be that it was made artificially and that invokes...no thanks, I'll stick with good old gravitational/impact formation, much easier, Ha ????.

[TKDfella]

20 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

So the number of people who need to keep silent for 50 years to sustain this hoax apparently keeps growing.

I have no idea because I am not a denier. Having said that I have seen some TV programmes where a claim has been that some photo shots may have been altered. But then again, even if that were true it doesn't prove anything and may have been done to improve picture quality

[Hummin]

20 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

Hmmm, actually that isn't quite correct. A flat Earth cannot be understood under current knowledge of planetary formation and requires such hefty modifications that it wouldn't be the simplest explanation. For example, one possible explanation for a 'flat planetoid' would be that it was made artificially and that invokes...no thanks, I'll stick with good old gravitational/impact formation, much easier, Ha ????.

Those flat earthers (anyone here) are confused about the flat galaxies and flat universe (it is actually curved with loop holes, but that is another story) so planets is round and the rest is flat like a pancake from one end to another

[ozimoron]

There is one conspiracy theory that I believe may actually exist although I still have an open mind about it.

 

I believe that Carl Jung was right and that there is a cohort (close to 50% imo) who do suffer from mass delusion and that the political dichotomy of left right thinking, the societal dichotomy of narcissism and sociopathy versus empathy, racism, superstition and belief in conspiracy theories are interrelated and not a coincidence. The conspiracy theory aspect of it is that I believe this relationship is well understood by sociologists and clinical psychologists. I have also read reports of genetic differences in brain function which may explain this phenomenon.

 

https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/research-and-discoveries-articles/study-shows-narcissistic-personality-disorder-may-have-a-biological-component

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjqwo_L4-_0AhWqIbcAHUNVA34QFnoECCUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fespace.library.uq.edu.au%2Fview%2FUQ%3A244583%2FUQ244583_OA.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0p6aERm32OJ80yQBjkbEcR

[TKDfella]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

Those flat earthers (anyone here) are confused about the flat galaxies and flat universe (it is actually curved with loop holes, but that is another story) so planets is round and the rest is flat like a pancake from one end to another

Galaxy formation is different from that of planets. For example, a solar system will be formed when an event occurs and a nebula is formed. From there gravity and other forms of energy will cause small particles to collapse/attract each other but these actions will also cause the them to spin. A central mass forms which eventually becomes a spinning star and the spinning is what causes the remaining material to rotate around the massive central object in disk like formation. Over many millions of years the rotating material will clump together under gravity and the planetoids formed will follow the disk track. Galaxies were formed by the cooling after the 'big bang' and when massive objects collapsed to form super massive Black Holes. The rotating Black Holes also collect material into a accretion disk. However galaxies aren't really flat and there several variations.

Of course this is theory and there is a lot more detail omitted and there is still much we have yet to learn. 

[Thunglom]

Here are some thoughts on 2 aspects of “research”

Firstly an attempt to outline what it is and 

Secondly a few tips on using internet search engines as part of research.

 

1 - Doing research

 

Basic Steps in the Research Process

Step 1: Identify and develop your topic. ... 

Step 2 : Do a preliminary search for information. ... 

Step 3: Locate materials. ... 

Step 4: Evaluate your sources. ... 

Step 5: Make notes. ... 

Step 6: Write your paper. ... 

Step 7: Cite your sources properly. ... 

Step 8: Proofread.

 

 

What does research involve? Well it depends on who you are – unfortunately people mistake searches on Google for proper research.  It can be a research tool if you know what you’re doing but it is not research.

 

Research is NOT just searching it can be practical empirical and  depending on the level, eventually peer-reviewed.

 

A scientist may use data gathered from practical experiments devised in a laboratory.

If you are  an zoologist there is a good chance your primary source will be observations and measurements catalogued and taken by yourself or your team in the wild

If you are an historian, sources may be other people’s writings either in the form of researched data or from original materials and documents from the topic you are researching – most likely a combination of both.

 

An undergraduate and PHD student a very likely to have different disciplines and criteria when it comes to gathering information – libraries from local to the British Library to international accessed digitally.

 

Sources are a key point.

On general chat forums like this most people rely on a few minutes on Google to make their point. This can be incredibly misleading as there is no time for a broad scan of the topic and many show scant regard for the authority of their sources. 

 

I was privileged enough at one point to be a member of the British Library. Many museums and galleries now have=free public access to their digitalised databases. Many papers on medical journals are accessible – beware of secondary (newspaper) rewriting of them. Some are invaluable but many just plain wrong.

 

Wikipedia is actually a good starting place – it has been found to be MORE ACCURATE that encyclopaedia Britannica. Its articles usually have a plethora of references to take the topic further.

 

Some sites are clearly bogus or promoting pseudo-science. – especially when it comes to medical science. Even medical and science “journals” are not all the same value and their editors may have varyingly strict criteria for which papers are published. (Wakefield’s fraudulent paper on MMR was published in the Lancet!)

Health websites in particular are notorious for their fake and fraudulent claims, especially with herbal cures and ‘alternative” medicines.

 

Remember if you start reading, make reference notes WHILST you are doing it – e.g - Book title Author, then page number. For internet chat, you may not need all that, but it is a good idea to use some form of bookmark system so you know where you got the info from – if you need to use it again

 

 

2 - On the net – using Google or other search engines.

 

 

Key Points

The internet is vast and often confusing, and in order to find what you want, you need to take some basic steps to make your search as focused and rewarding as possible. Strategies for pinpointing the best, most relevant content include the following:

Vary your search engine: in fact, get used to using several, as they have different strengths.

Use specific keywords: be as specific as you can in your wording.

Simplify your search terms: strip out unnecessary stop words and avoid suffixes.

Use quotation marks: this narrows searches down to particular words and phrases.

Remove unhelpful words: remove confusing or misdirecting terms from your searches with the - (minus) operator.

Refine your search using operators: use operators to search specific sites, related sites, and particular combinations of terms.

Avoid search pitfalls: the internet is a selling tool as well as a fantastic resource. Be sure that you only view advertisements if you want to.

https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/internet-searching.htm

 

 

A few tips on using internet search engines as part of research.

What you get out of a search depends on what you put in. many people hamper their searches right from the start by putting in phrase that miss the target – they could be too imprecise or  too precise.

e.g. buying a used car – “Nissan” or Nissan March 250000 .. 290000 baht

 

I’ve noticed with my uni students that they aren’t always very thoughtful when typing in search terms This is partly because they are translating from Thai to English – but even in Tai they search to vaguely and turn up stuff that is useless or miss the stuff that could really help. For example if they wanted something on  point of  English grammar such as possessives. They might just put “grammar” or English Grammar” or  possessives.

English Grammar possessives or my your his would be better the later term  would get rid of all the other EL possessives.

 

 

Try Google Advanced search – Google and other search engines have got a lot more user friendly over the last decade but it can still pay off to use Google advanced search or similar searchers as it allows for more precise searches.

 

Back in the day I used to use Boolean search terms, but they really aren’t needed now and have been replaced by symbols.

 

E.G.

-       Using “””” inverted commas can help to get an exact phrase  (Plus + sign s no longer used on Google) 

-       - Sign ignores a word

-       ~ gets similar words

-       * is good for words you get remember in a phrase – e.g. Song title or name of group

 

There are other symbols

https://www.digitalthirdcoast.com/blog/5-easy-symbols-google-work

 

Vaccine myths is the one most likely to throw up a load of conspiracy theories.

 

Check your sources. There’s a difference between shooting the messenger and using unreliable sources. Even sources you don’t agree with can be very accurate, but it is helpful to understand their politics – that way you know where they’re coming from…and conversely, just because you agree with them it doesn’t mean they are right.

 

Beware of cherry -pickers – people who have a preconceived idea and then seek out citations that support them and ignore those that oppose it.

 

Beware also of on quote wonders – people who do one search on Google, find a site that suits them and quote it as if it is the definitive end of the argument.

 

Further abuse of references comes in the form of Sealioning - This is used on chat forums by those without an argument. They feel they’d like to disagree but have no reasoning behind it. The result is repeated requests for citations – usually very banal. It’s a form of passive aggression.

“Sealioning is a harassment tactic by which a participant in a debate or online discussion pesters the other participant with disingenuous questions under the guise of sincerity, hoping to erode the patience or goodwill of the target to the point where they appear unreasonable. Often, sealioning involved asking for evidence for even basic claims.” – Merriam-Webster

 

 

How good or reliable are your sources?

 

·      Does the article discuss or reference another articles? If so, could you use those instead?

·      What expertise or authority does the author have? Can you verify that?

·      When was the material written?  Outdated articles can be misleading depending on the topic.

·      Why was the article published? – Do they have an axe to grind – if you see the words “fair and balanced” the chances are it isn’t. A real article is putting forward a reasoned argument and expects you to understand that from the article, not from terms like “fair and balanced” or “unbiased” Other terms that should set of alarms are things like “family values” “patriot” “pinko” “agenda” “PC gone mad” “greenies” “tree-hugger” “leftie” “commie” and other clichés used instead of real logical argument.

·      Are the research methods used consistent and reliable?  This depends a lot on what you are discussing. 

 

 

Statistics and figures lots of posters on ThaiVisa LOVE posting series of graphs, diagrams and lists of numbers which they think (often incorrectly) support they argument or claim. It seems most of the time they don’t even seem to understand the graphs themselves. Graphs and stats can do 2 things. Clarify a point or give the impression that a false premise is actually credible.

 

For a  great example of misleading or pointless figures - I’ve noticed in the UK, many skin cream advertisements claiming  things like “86% of women asked claimed they noticed a difference. (sample of 93 women)”

Firstly that isn’t a very big sample – it doesn’t claim there WAS a difference, just that some women thought there might be. Then 6 admitted they couldn’t see any difference at all.

Finally why such an odd number? One might suggest that several women’s answers didn’t satisfy the company’s hopes (said it was worse??) and so they discarded them.

 

Still it shows that even the most inconsequential web sites can distort information with impunity.

 

It is up to the researcher to try and sort the wheat from the chaff.

 

 

 

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

 What does research involve? Well it depends on who you are – unfortunately people mistake searches on Google for proper research.  It can be a research tool if you know what you’re doing but it is not research.

 

Research is NOT just searching it can be practical empirical and  depending on the level, eventually peer-reviewed.

 

A scientist may use data gathered from practical experiments devised in a laboratory.

If you are  an zoologist there is a good chance your primary source will be observations and measurements catalogued and taken by yourself or your team in the wild

If you are an historian, sources may be other people’s writings either in the form of researched data or from original materials and documents from the topic you are researching – most likely a combination of both.

Very nice article. Thanks for taking the time to write a well considered and comprehensive treatise.

 

I think the gold standard is to go to the original source material and evaluate that for yourself but for most non scientists it is acceptable to use the MSM as an executive summary and to point us to the resources we need. I often start with the MSM and take it from there. I don't pretend to understand the deeper scientific and medical papers and I don't think I need to. I am not in disagreement with you at all. The key, as you point out, is to trust your sources and be suspicious if they are widely canned by other articles or fact checkers. My trust also increases if I can find multiple credible sources which support one another. The qualifications of the authors is also crucial.

[Thunglom]

38 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The qualifications of the authors is also crucial.

That is a bit dangerous - Wakelfield, the scandalous vaccine fraudster was a fully qualified doctor/researcher.... many highly qualified people often go off the rails at some point.

The thing is wherever possible is to look at the message rather than the messenger.

[ozimoron]

6 hours ago, Thunglom said:

That is a bit dangerous - Wakelfield, the scandalous vaccine fraudster was a fully qualified doctor/researcher.... many highly qualified people often go off the rails at some point.

The thing is wherever possible is to look at the message rather than the messenger.

I didn't say it was the only factor but lack of qualifications in the field is a big red flag. For example, a retired nurse commenting on covid vaccines is likely to get a pass from me.

[placeholder]

17 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Still wondering why Obama bought a beach front property.

After all he knows the seas are rising and it'll be underwater soon!

define "soon"

[Danderman123]

17 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Aren't you the guy who lives in an isolated village upcountry who rarely has any contact with anyone and therefore doesn't feel the need to get vaccinated?

 

I live in the NT in Australia which has only recently had it's first cases. Unsurprisingly I don't know anybody who has had the virus either. It seems that the entire world's MSM media is ion on a huge conspiracy to exaggerate the case numbers. Even China. "Go figure".

Actually, excess mortality numbers indicate that the official death counts for Covid are significantly undercounted.

 

i get it - for your conspiracy theory to work, you need to believe that governments are exaggerating the impact of Covid. But, your basic premise is clearly false.

 

[Danderman123]

10 minutes ago, Nurt said:

That makes me wonder: how is forceful vaccination, in some country, of people by

  a) experimental vaccines, that work only during half a year, apporximattely

  b) against the virus with the mortality rate of less than 1%, of which mostly only weak and already sick die
 

  c) which gets constantly advertized by TV and big mass newpapers

 

  d) where  everyone gets persuaded that the virus IS VERY dangerous, and you WILL die if you don't take a vaccine

 

  e) and when some pro-vaxxers religiously trying to persuade others, non-vaccinated, too, as if the formers were from some sort of church

 

 

... isn't a conpiracy theory?
 

 

---

By the way, how did at least 95% manage to recover well, without vaccines, when there were no vaccines in 2020? Hundreds of MILLIONS of people.

 

 

5 million+ dead from Covid.

 

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Actually, excess mortality numbers indicate that the official death counts for Covid are significantly undercounted.

 

i get it - for your conspiracy theory to work, you need to believe that governments are exaggerating the impact of Covid. But, your basic premise is clearly false.

 

I was being sarcastic, I apologise. I thought it would be clear from the post I was replying to but apparently not so much.

[TKDfella]

10 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Very nice article. Thanks for taking the time to write a well considered and comprehensive treatise.

 

I think the gold standard is to go to the original source material and evaluate that for yourself but for most non scientists it is acceptable to use the MSM as an executive summary and to point us to the resources we need. I often start with the MSM and take it from there. I don't pretend to understand the deeper scientific and medical papers and I don't think I need to. I am not in disagreement with you at all. The key, as you point out, is to trust your sources and be suspicious if they are widely canned by other articles or fact checkers. My trust also increases if I can find multiple credible sources which support one another. The qualifications of the authors is also crucial.

Another point that is also useful is one's own retention of what one learned at secondary/high school/technical level. CaMP, Chemistry, mathematics and physics. Most of us have done this but unfortunately it may get lost later (various reasons) but such a foundation can give one a basic idea of how things should proceed. See something that contradicts your understanding is a time to check and re-check