Research and ideology - Page 2

Originally posted by: souro

A research being funded by some organisation is not bad as such neither does it mean that there is something wrong with the study. But here we're talking about the research findings that we get to see on the internet and how much of it is believable. Most of the research findings that we see here don't give out the name of the market research agency that undertook the research, so how do we know how reliable the source is. Moreover, since you're talking about pointing out gross errors in those studies, tell me how do we do that without vital informations all of which are never given out, e.g., primary and secondary endpoints, study design (sample size, sampling method, location, duration, demographics). Obviously if they don't give out these informations I don't see any reason to treat them as authentic.

Originally posted by: sareg

I am not saying let us invalidate the findings of a research,

the question is

The research started with an ideology in mind(and most of them are, and absolutely no problem with that), however if the findings are tampered from an ideology standpoing, do those findings have the same value?

For example

There is a research done on say global warming, and is funded by an organization say a Coal mining firm

now if all they states is evidence refuting the existance of Global Warming, how much faith will you as a reader have in those findings

The researchers might have found both positives and negatives in the research, but when it came down to publication, all it states is the negatives, and that is all you see, will you beleive it?

Originally posted by: sourav1

There is concept in science called "Falsifiability", which means how much of a handle does a theory give for refuting itself. The more falsifiable it is, the more scientific it is. Things like Prakash Karat's research into how much MMS is a stooge of Bush is one end of falsifiability where he might not point to any data that might be verified. The other end of spectrum could be physics - like classical mechanics which can be verified with little effort. More specifically since physics usually has a mathematical modelling of its laws, any one observation which does not satisfy the mathematical modelling is enough to refute the law - hence physics is highly falsifiable and that is why this field is very scientific. Classical mechanics were proved not to be universal with observations on accelerated particles and cosmic events. However it would be difficult to prove Karat wrong if he does not give any information to verify in the first place.

This only applies to observational Science not to quantum mechanics, and prognostic research of diseases where the measure of falsibility is hardly a criteria compared to validation itself. This is true if many theoritical models... Physics derives from observation and then weaves a theory around it... is not itself driven by theory.. so its slightly different...

But what you say in a way is true.The bare minimal the axioms/assumptions on which the theory is based the better...

Originally posted by: raksha.l

I am amazed the way some people make every imp decisions of their lives depending on the input/feedback, they get from the search engines...They somehow forget that Internet is like the walls of the public bathrooms, anybody can write anything...One needs to use his/her discretion before making it their quide...Agreed there are some genuine sites which offer near accurate information, but other than that, most of the sites/blogs are unauthorized and hence should be taken with a pinch of salt..

Originally posted by: sareg

Topic of debate here is

What comes first? Research or the ideology?

Sometimes its a research by someone which forces you to research(which may/may not change your ideology),

sometimes its your ideology which forces you into research to just check it out.

Is the research done to prove the ideology and anything contrary to the ideology is ignored?
It shouldn't be ignored,
but if it is ,
then the other debaters are always there to bring the cases contrary to what you feel😃

how do you sift thru this to find what is the neutral research article?

If you find the views in the article matching what you think , then its neutral😆

But speaking seriously,in my case, it absolutely depends on how i am thinking at that particular time, or rather if i am able to realise if that article is indeed not neutral.

Sometimes it does happen that the article might not be neutral and highly biased, but if your mind is not aware of that , you might just go about thinking in the wrong direction.

Par fir hamare doosre debaters kis kaam ke hain ?😛

Yahi samjhane ke liye to hain ki tum galat soch rahe the ya sahi 😆

Do you while researching for a debate/discussion have this at the back of your mind, that the research you are citing might be biased?

As a matter of fact , yes, but i have faith in fellow debaters that even if i missed something ,

there are others,

jo baal ki khaal nikalge hi chodenge 😆