+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: What Constitutes Legitimate "Research"

  1. Link to Post #21
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Thanked 22,776 times in 4,212 posts

    Default Re: What Constitutes Legitimate "Research"

    Quote Posted by shaberon (here)

    . . . scope it out. . . . .

    I've seen a lot of good tips here but the one thing I was drawn to go back to, so I could "quote" it was . . Scope it Out.

    It traverses all forms of research and classifications of evidence.

    All I can add to that is, scope it out again, and again, and again, and never stop.
    .................................................. my first language is TYPO..............................................

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (14th September 2018), shaberon (16th September 2018)

  3. Link to Post #22
    Avalon Member O Donna's Avatar
    Join Date
    9th January 2018
    Thanked 3,468 times in 535 posts

    Default Re: What Constitutes Legitimate "Research"

    Excellent OP.

    From someone that has spent a fair amount of time digging, "fake news" is not a recent phenomenon. Has others notice how news outlets will use the literary device "fake news" and similar devices in an attempt to legitimize their own news source(s)?

    Quote History is written by the victors.

    -- Winston Churchill

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to O Donna For This Post:

    shaberon (16th September 2018)

  5. Link to Post #23
    United States Avalon Member Denise/Dizi's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd July 2017
    Thanked 4,407 times in 740 posts

    Default Re: What Constitutes Legitimate "Research"

    Sadly, people seem to be video, and book searching, and calling that "Research".. to me "Research" means that you find some information, such as books and videos, and the testimony of others, and then you go and try to find the ORIGINAL evidence and examine it, to form NEW or possibly MISSED conclusions that can either lend credibility to the original conclusions, or create NEW ONES.

    It requires that you "reexamine" the body of evidence, Not the interpretation of it, from someone else's point of view... whether it be a craft, documents, witnesses, etc.. We have a phenomenon of people spending their time SEARCHING information now, regurgitating it, and labeling themselves as legitimate "Reseachers"..

    I was in a clinical research study for two new MS drugs. The people, or "Researchers" were required to question me, examine side effects, form conclusions, document it, and then present the body of their work... THAT is LEGITAMITE RESEARCH... Someone else, merely coming through later, and reading the results of their work, is not research, it is the study of their CONCLUSIONS.. A PRECURSOR to actual RESEARCH... Until they actually examine the people, the MRI'S, the medications, they're doing nothing more than studying results. And then sharing it. If they then went on to see if they could DUPLICATE those results, by doing the same testing, THAT would be what I would consider RESEARCH...IF one of those people studying the work of my reseachers noticed a test result the original researchers missed, then THAT could then be followed up upon, and perhaps a NEW idea could be formed, but it requires those extra steps. Merely finding it, changes nothing... Unless it is PROFOUND and gives a completely different result. But until they begin to dig into the evidence that gave the original researchers their conclusions, the information can't be properly challenged..

    Essentially if we all only use the information of other legitimate researchers, as the end all of proof, then we are bound to their conclusions based upon what they found.. That isn't challenging their findings in any way. Just confirming they believe , based upon the body of evidence they were able to provide, that this is the truth. Unless you look for MORE, you will never be able to challenge the conclusions.. And research IS the challenging of conclusions, based upon evidence and findings, and things other people may have MISSED... It is a RE EXAMINATION of the body of evidence which prompted the original conclusions...

    We are no longer holding armchair researchers to that standard.
    Last edited by Denise/Dizi; 15th September 2018 at 19:34.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Denise/Dizi For This Post:

    Bayareamom (16th September 2018), Jayke (15th September 2018), norman (15th September 2018), shaberon (16th September 2018)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts