Try to find only the most directly-related information. If you’re struggling to find good sources, try refining your search terms and looking again.Books obviously make for good overviews of topics. If you’re researching obesity, you’ll be able to find long-range research studies, expert analysis, and opinions on books in the subject. Ironically, conducting actual, thorough research from vetted and reliable sources is the best way to debunk conspiracy theories; this goes largely unnoticed by their advocates. It’s commonly used when evidence is debunked too, as some people aren’t mature enough to admit that they’re wrong.
But it’s an open question whether we should value it as much as we do. We often and predictably do much better with regard to knowledge by relying on testimony, rather than by doing our own research. The former is routinely more reliable than the latter; doing our own research risks the truth of our beliefs and their justification . So you have to do a little more research to know exactly who is giving you that information. Are they a credible organization, maybe an organization of neuroscientists?
Research Process Overview
I communicated my weakness openly to my supervisor and warned her in advance that I would be asking stupid questions throughout the duration of my project just so I could get an idea of what I was doing. The credit indeed goes to her, but it is ultimately your responsibility to communicate with your supervisor and ask as many questions as you need to. This article was co-authored by Matthew Snipp, PhD. C. Matthew Snipp is the Burnet C. And Mildred Finley Wohlford Professor of Humanities and Sciences in the Department of Sociology at Stanford University.
So use your results in Google Scholar, but read closely, read the citations, and verify your information. Sometimes a consensus is measured by gauging expert opinion while other times it’s by evaluating evidence. It can take significant time and research for experts to reach a consensus, and some issues have more agreement than others.
Watch Articles
—Unnatural Vegan”Do your own research!” is a common phrase used by conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience promoters of various creeds in response to people who are skeptical of their claims. This phrase is a form of the escape hatch used by a charlatan who wants to win the argument but does not want to bear the burden of proof. Some specify YouTube is the key to all your “research” . People find the first link on Google, or the first video on Youtube, or the first group on Facebook that supports what http://trusfok2011.ru/page/3 they already believe, and declare their “research” finished. We’re all at risk of falling into such traps, because we’re all prone to cognitive biases like confirmation bias, in-group bias, and dozens of others that make it very hard to see the world as it really is. POOL/AFP via Getty ImagesThere is no excuse, with all the wonderful scientists and science communicators telling the truth about a whole slew of issues in our world, for people to seek out only the opinions that confirm their own biases.
And blogs, personal websites, and social media sites are more likely to give personal opinions rather than facts. One of the first things you should look for is the project’s use case – does it have an application within an existing business or industry? Who are the competitors – and does the project even need to be blockchain-based?
Much of this information goes through the same process as those on something like Web of Science, but is provided at no cost to readers. Much more scientific information has found its way to the open access market in recent years, as academics and other researchers have found issues with the massive paywall academic journals and databases fling up. These, you might also have to do further research on — who is writing them? What are the responsibilities of the publication when selecting papers and writers? The lack of paywall often indicates that these journals and repositories were started as passion projects or school projects, meaning there are fewer steps that a paper might go through.
Open Edition NFTs: New Fad or New Opportunity?
You haven’t found trustworthy sources the experts have all missed. You’ve been misled by propaganda that appealed to your emotions or biases. We’re more likely to fall for misinformation when it confirms what we already believe.
Their experience makes them less willing to listen to well-informed advisers than they would have been otherwise. Consider what can happen when people begin to learn about a topic. They may start out appropriately humble, but they can quickly become unreasonably confident after just a small amount of exposure to the subject. Researchers have called this phenomenon the beginner’s bubble. The final step in the process is to proofread the paper you have created. Read through the text and check for any errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
- You can also combine these with elements such as roadmap milestones and marketing plans to get a broader perspective.
- In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, research was of the utmost importance for finding healthcare solutions which could be rapidly deployed by partnering with those with available capacity.
- And if you need to talk to me, don’t hesitate to leave a comment below.
- If I’m right, though, dogmatic or exploratory inquiry offers us our best hope for balancing the risks and rewards of doing our own research.
There’s no reason to expect deeper research to do any better in this hostile epistemic environment. This study aimed to investigate the predictors of endorsement of the COVID-19 conspiracy theories grouped as demographics , conservatism and overconfidence , and trust in science (easy-to-change worldview). Conservatism ceased to be a significant predictor in the third step of the analysis, suggesting a potential mediating role of the trust in science/scientists in the relationship between conservatism and conspiratorial thinking. The final model accounted for 46% of the variance of believing in COVID-19 conspiracy theories with gender, overconfidence in one’s own reasoning, and trust in science/scientists as significant predictors.