How do you research accurately?

[Janna]

With all of the information out there and so easily accessible, how do you know they information you have is accurate?

 

We are all so opinionated on this board, and we love to throw in links as "proof" for or against our opinions, but how do we know what we're saying is even right? For every pro there is a con. Everything can be debated and "proved" false (or true). So how do you know? Where do you get your information from and what makes you settle it in your mind that it's truth? And honestly, how does one even have TIME to thoroughly research something?

 

There are a few of you on this board who seem to be knowledgeable on just about everything someone brings up. How do you have the time and where do you get your information? Just even with all that is happening since the election of President Obama in January, I can't seem to keep up to know what's really happening, you know? Let alone all that is happening in my own neck of the woods.

 

How does one do it?

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

One thing I do is consider what the "expert" has to gain or lose by the information they are giving out. If they do not have a vested interest, chances are better that they are closer to the truth than someone who dispenses knowledge for a price, even a hidden price.

 

For example, a respected doctor who might tell you that over use of sunscreen can prohibit vitamin d production which could lead to many health issues. What does the doctor gain by telling you to get more sunshine, besides a healthier patient? This would make me seriously consider that what the doctor is saying is relevant.

 

The problem is that it is sometimes impossible to tell who benefits by certain "information" today. So many individuals and companies get incentives and bonuses for pushing things that people do not necessarily need.

 

Also there are laws in place which actually keep people from revealing all available information and options, especially in the medical business. When my mother had cancer she learned to ask the doctors and nurses "What would you do?" Then they were free to tell her about alternative options that they would try. But they could not *volunteer* the information, because it was not officially sanctioned.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Virginia Dawn

[Sharon H in IL]

I think part of what we want for our children is to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Having a good framework of history, math, and science education makes filling in the bare spaces easier, because you will recognize when something doesn't fit.

 

Is it a poor fit because the framework is wrong somewhere (possible)? or because the information is invalid or poorly presented (more likely)?

 

If I have a basic understanding of biology, I won't accept anecdotal evidence as representing a generalizable medicine. "It works for me" is good. "It works for 70 out of 100 people versus a comparable group that tried Brand X and had a 30 out of 100 response rate" is much, much better.

 

You also learn that people's personality has a lot to do with how they interpret data. Iconoclasts can't bear to 'accept the word of authority.' So they tend to believe evidence that undercuts the authority. True believers (of any type) can't bear to believe their heroes have feet of clay, so resist evidence of bad behavior of the leader, for example, that he might have shaded his data to fit his theory.

 

My Dad loves conspiracy theories, so remembers anything he hears that reinforces that and forgets evidence he's read or heard that tends to disprove it. (But you've can't prove the non-existence of a conspiracy, so he's really always ok.):lol:

 

Given all those items, and reading the best arguments from both sides of an issue you can make up your mind and rest easy, knowing you've done the best you can. Nothing in this world is 100%, and if it were, we couldn't wrap our heads around it anyway. Do your part, and let the quest for perfect choices go.

[Tutor]

I try to find a few sources for each topic I am interested in from a variety of view points. I figure this gives me most of the facts I need to know with enough slant in every direction that I can decipher what is accurate and what is pure spin.

 

If I am researching a scientific topic, I try to find the original article on the research and find out who conducted the research and who funded it. I will also try to read other scientists' interpretations of the research.

 

If it is political, I try to find the original statement, bill, document, judicial opinion, or whatever and read that first. Then I will read a variety of commentaries.

 

I also try to research as much cited material as possible. If a scientific article cites previous research, I'll read the cited work too. If a judicial opinion cites a previous case, I'll read-up on the previous case also.

 

I like to do research. I think it is fun. It is "pleasure reading" of a sort for me.

[Colleen in NS]

I think part of what we want for our children is to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Having a good framework of history, math, and science education makes filling in the bare spaces easier, because you will recognize when something doesn't fit.

 

Is it a poor fit because the framework is wrong somewhere (possible)? or because the information is invalid or poorly presented (more likely)?

 

:iagree: This is a great way to explain a vague notion I had in my mind.