Doing your own research also means being open to the possibility that your hypothesis is incorrect.

  • 5gruel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    I would agree that scientific practice is far from the ideal in the post, but it doesn’t claim that researchers aren’t susceptible to those biases. That is why there are processes in place like peer review.

    • sazey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Peer review isn’t an infallible process, it has been shown to be super susceptible to cronyism for example, and even outside of it churns out a vast array of (mostly) useless unreproducible, or sometimes even entirely fraudulent, research. I don’t even have a problem with the former part, research is actually a lot more tinkering and trial based than some set-in-stone endeavour and it certainly wouldn’t hurt the good Ms Sparado to remember that.

      I am paraphrasing the post from memory but it came across extremely gatekeepy and condescending with the “but have you conducted double blind trials like I have?” (or sentiments to that effect) as if those are the only valid ways of conducting research. Not even a slight sign of humility in how much researchers and academics have got wrong themselves and maybe to use that as an example in caution when doing your own research.