Sources/Evidence and Their Importance

[Quetzal]

I know I have bugged bunch of you on here about this and I decided to make a thread dedicated to it. Sources! Yes, everyone’s favorite topic! Now, you might be thinking to yourself “Oh, Q, you are such a stick in the mud, give it a rest already!” Call me what you want but it does not undermine the idea that sources and evidence are important. Let’s give a quick rundown.

What is a source?

A source is a piece of evidence to support your argument or idea from somewhere other than yourself.

Why is a source important?

It adds credibility to your stance by demonstrating a study or an expert opinion that supports your argument. It makes your argument more believable and adds depth to an otherwise empty, opinionated statement. In the world of politics and academia, a statement without anything to support it is one step above deliberate fabrication. In short, if you are not a published expert in your field without credentials, you need a source.

What is the difference between a biased and unbiased source?

Biased sources are typically blogs or forum posts that appear to be driven by an agenda. In other words, accuracy is sacrificed or information is skewed to illustrate a certain topic a certain way at the discretion of the author. These sources are viewed as peripheral to debate and are often not taken seriously.

Unbiased sources are traditionally based on empirical evidence. Additionally, they go through a series of academic exercises to ensure accuracy. This includes peer reviews, independent studies and surveys. Finally, these sources will be supported by an academic or scientific institutions. These sources are not completely infallible, but they are held in higher regard than other sources alone.

So, next time I bug you about a source, there is a very simple reason why. I don’t believe you. I need you to show me why you think the way that you do. By the same token, I am subject to the same process. Call me out! “Hey Q, show me some sources.” This adds depth to a discussion that would otherwise be a mindless shouting match.

Cheers!

 

[annabenedetti]

Once upon a time, I wasn't aware how often I'd fallen into the trap of confirmation bias. Anyone, no matter what their political, religious, cultural ideology can be guilty of some degree of confirmation bias (how easily do you overcome a natural human trait of wanting to see what's cognitively comfortable?) but when the realization hit me, it completely changed the way I looked at information. In my case, I'd been living in a conservative bubble. Conservative family (with few exceptions), friends, TV (FOX news), websites, message boards, pundits, religious authorities, talk radio, you name it. When I started looking at information from other viewpoints and learning to see through someone else's eyes... it was a turning point for me. And I really had to work at learning it, because that kind of critical thinking hadn't been taught to me, and I didn't know enough to seek it out for myself. What a revelation. Although I still catch myself all the time, it's not like I'm cured or anything. :chuckle:

Anyway. I made a thread here about confirmation bias, but unfortunately it got pruned. In fact, almost every one of my threads that meant something to me politically, the ones that kind of charted my thinking over the past few years, they're all gone. I don't know how I feel about that, about how so many TOL discussions and so much information sharing has been wiped out.

I'll just finish with a wiki link: Confirmation bias

 

[RevTestament]

Once upon a time, I wasn't aware how often I'd fallen into the trap of confirmation bias. Anyone, no matter what their political, religious, cultural ideology can be guilty of some degree of confirmation bias (how easily do you overcome a natural human trait of wanting to see what's cognitively comfortable?) but when the realization hit me, it completely changed the way I looked at information. In my case, I'd been living in a conservative bubble. Conservative family (with few exceptions), friends, TV (FOX news), websites, message boards, pundits, religious authorities, talk radio, you name it. When I started looking at information from other viewpoints and learning to see through someone else's eyes... it was a turning point for me. And I really had to work at learning it, because that kind of critical thinking hadn't been taught to me, and I didn't know enough to seek it out for myself. What a revelation. Although I still catch myself all the time, it's not like I'm cured or anything. :chuckle:

Anyway. I made a thread here about confirmation bias, but unfortunately it got pruned. In fact, almost every one of my threads that meant something to me politically, the ones that kind of charted my thinking over the past few years, they're all gone. I don't know how I feel about that, about how so many TOL discussions and so much information sharing has been wiped out.

I'll just finish with a wiki link: Confirmation bias

I lost a lot of threads too. Sorry for your loss. But if you really want, you can find them on the https://archive.org/web/

 

[Kdall]

This thread NEEDS to be seen by everyone on TOL

 

[Quetzal]

I just hope users find this kind of information useful. Part of me believes that some people have never gone through a proper, academic discussion. If they never went to college, it is something they never would have experienced.

 

[HisServant]

I know I have bugged bunch of you on here about this and I decided to make a thread dedicated to it. Sources! Yes, everyone’s favorite topic! Now, you might be thinking to yourself “Oh, Q, you are such a stick in the mud, give it a rest already!” Call me what you want but it does not undermine the idea that sources and evidence are important. Let’s give a quick rundown.

What is a source?

A source is a piece of evidence to support your argument or idea from somewhere other than yourself.

Why is a source important?

It adds credibility to your stance by demonstrating a study or an expert opinion that supports your argument. It makes your argument more believable and adds depth to an otherwise empty, opinionated statement. In the world of politics and academia, a statement without anything to support it is one step above deliberate fabrication. In short, if you are not a published expert in your field without credentials, you need a source.

What is the difference between a biased and unbiased source?

Biased sources are typically blogs or forum posts that appear to be driven by an agenda. In other words, accuracy is sacrificed or information is skewed to illustrate a certain topic a certain way at the discretion of the author. These sources are viewed as peripheral to debate and are often not taken seriously.

Unbiased sources are traditionally based on empirical evidence. Additionally, they go through a series of academic exercises to ensure accuracy. This includes peer reviews, independent studies and surveys. Finally, these sources will be supported by an academic or scientific institutions. These sources are not completely infallible, but they are held in higher regard than other sources alone.

So, next time I bug you about a source, there is a very simple reason why. I don’t believe you. I need you to show me why you think the way that you do. By the same token, I am subject to the same process. Call me out! “Hey Q, show me some sources.” This adds depth to a discussion that would otherwise be a mindless shouting match.

Cheers!

Peer review is pretty much bogus and is almost always biased in some way or another.

http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.short?rss=1&ssource=mfr

Then there is just made up 'empirical' evidence used in studies... and example of this would be the number of polar bears that was pulled out of someone's rear because they were pressured to produce a number. Then when an actual census was done people were in an uproar because the amount counted was significantly lower than what was dreamed up.

People are still crying about the decline of polar bears, simply because a study got out that they WANTED to see.

20-30 years ago, I would have agreed with you, because academia had a lot more integrity back then... today its become big business and has lot its integrity and has received more than its share of black eyes lately when their frauds are exposed.

 

[Quetzal]

Peer review is pretty much bogus and is almost always biased in some way or another.

http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.short?rss=1&ssource=mfr

Then there is just made up 'empirical' evidence used in studies... and example of this would be the number of polar bears that was pulled out of someone's rear because they were pressured to produce a number. Then when an actual census was done people were in an uproar because the amount counted was significantly lower than what was dreamed up.

People are still crying about the decline of polar bears, simply because a study got out that they WANTED to see.

20-30 years ago, I would have agreed with you, because academia had a lot more integrity back then... today its become big business and has lot its integrity and has received more than its share of black eyes lately when their frauds are exposed.

We have already discussed this and you could not support your argument. Thank you for reading anyway.

 

[HisServant]

I just did, via that link.. as far as how peer review is pretty much garbage.

But don't let that affect your reality distortion field.

 

[Stripe]

:mock: sources

 

[Kdall]

:mock: sources

This is why you can't have nice things.....or be taken seriously

 

[Stripe]

:mock: kdull

 

[Kdall]

:mock: kdull

And again

 

[kmoney]

I came across an article yesterday that made me think of this. It's about reproducability in scientific studies and concerns that there isn't enough focus on that.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0828/An-emerging-challenge-to-science-s-credibility

An emerging challenge to science's credibility

Concerns are mounting that a pillar of modern science is showing cracks.

A key feature of science is researchers' ability to reproduce experiments – to conduct a reality check on another group's work by using its materials and following its methods, then comparing the results.

It's a way to separate results worth building upon from those that aren't, either because a research team was careless, overlooked something, misinterpreted data, or at worst, fabricated results.

During the past several years, however, worries have grown that many nonreproducible results are working their way into the scientific literature, lingering undetected and, importantly, unchallenged. Such results can feed into others' work as they design their own experiments or pose their own research questions.

At stake, researchers say, is the credibility of science, especially when it is invoked to inform public policy on issues from climate change to new medical treatments. Investment decisions also hinge on credible, reliable research.

Concerns may grow further with the publication Thursday of what purports to be the most systematic effort to date to replicate others' experiments. More than 270 scientists around the world banded together to replicate 100 social- and cognitive-psychology experiments whose results appeared in three prestigious psychology journals.

While 97 percent of the original studies showed statistically significant results, only 36 percent of the replicated studies did. Of the successful replications, 83 percent showed a much smaller effects than the original studies showed, says Brian Nosek, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia and executive director of the Center for Open Science in Charlottesville, Va.

The results come laced with caveats. Results are not necessarily wrong if they can't be replicated, nor are they necessarily right if they can be replicated, the researchers note. Numerous variables can come into play, yielding different results even when the same general procedures are followed. Moreover, the new study represents an initial look at a small sample of experiments in one discipline.

Indeed, it's unclear if these new results themselves could be reproduced, suggested Dr. Nosek, one of the study's coauthors, during a briefing this week on the work.

"This should just be seen as a first step, an initial piece of evidence for establishing what reproducibility in general might be," he said.

Still, he added, "the results suggest that there is a lot of room to improve reproducibility."

Several factors can make a study challenging to replicate. Cutting-edge experiments can be expensive, its tools and procedures complicated, and it can take years to perform, notes Kelvin Droegemeier, vice president for research at the University of Oklahoma.

"Due to that complexity, it's become more difficult to reproduce results," he says.

Moreover, competition is fierce for grant money, which typically doesn't reward redoing someone else's work. Instead it goes to work that looks to generate new results.

Researchers are under pressure to continually produce important results, which in turn keeps grant money coming in. A strong list of published results represents valuable currency for getting a faculty position at a university or tenure once on the faculty. These factors can combine in subtle and not-so-subtle ways to influence how some researchers design and execute studies and interpret their results.

.......

 

[kmoney]

Peer review is pretty much bogus and is almost always biased in some way or another.

http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.short?rss=1&ssource=mfr

Then there is just made up 'empirical' evidence used in studies... and example of this would be the number of polar bears that was pulled out of someone's rear because they were pressured to produce a number. Then when an actual census was done people were in an uproar because the amount counted was significantly lower than what was dreamed up.

People are still crying about the decline of polar bears, simply because a study got out that they WANTED to see.

20-30 years ago, I would have agreed with you, because academia had a lot more integrity back then... today its become big business and has lot its integrity and has received more than its share of black eyes lately when their frauds are exposed.

In another thread where you were talking about this you said that people should do their own research.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4428904&postcount=122


How would you go about doing your own research on something like climate change?

 

[kmoney]

Once upon a time, I wasn't aware how often I'd fallen into the trap of confirmation bias. Anyone, no matter what their political, religious, cultural ideology can be guilty of some degree of confirmation bias (how easily do you overcome a natural human trait of wanting to see what's cognitively comfortable?) but when the realization hit me, it completely changed the way I looked at information. In my case, I'd been living in a conservative bubble. Conservative family (with few exceptions), friends, TV (FOX news), websites, message boards, pundits, religious authorities, talk radio, you name it. When I started looking at information from other viewpoints and learning to see through someone else's eyes... it was a turning point for me. And I really had to work at learning it, because that kind of critical thinking hadn't been taught to me, and I didn't know enough to seek it out for myself. What a revelation. Although I still catch myself all the time, it's not like I'm cured or anything. :chuckle:

Anyway. I made a thread here about confirmation bias, but unfortunately it got pruned. In fact, almost every one of my threads that meant something to me politically, the ones that kind of charted my thinking over the past few years, they're all gone. I don't know how I feel about that, about how so many TOL discussions and so much information sharing has been wiped out.

I'll just finish with a wiki link: Confirmation bias

I would like this post but I'm not sure if I'm just confirming a bias. :noid:

 

[annabenedetti]

I came across an article yesterday that made me think of this. It's about reproducability in scientific studies and concerns that there isn't enough focus on that.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0828/An-emerging-challenge-to-science-s-credibility

I've been following that story with some interest. This part makes sense to me:

The results come laced with caveats. Results are not necessarily wrong if they can't be replicated, nor are they necessarily right if they can be replicated, the researchers note. Numerous variables can come into play, yielding different results even when the same general procedures are followed. Moreover, the new study represents an initial look at a small sample of experiments in one discipline.

Indeed, it's unclear if these new results themselves could be reproduced, suggested Dr. Nosek, one of the study's coauthors, during a briefing this week on the work.

Sample size is important. The bigger the sample, the higher the probability of validity. Replication is important, but as stated above it can be difficult, especially with multiple variables. Also, as much as animal studies are helpful, even invaluable - when it comes to studies of cognition and behavior I'm not so easily swayed by what a handful of mice have done being generalized to the human population.

 

[annabenedetti]

I would like this post but I'm not sure if I'm just confirming a bias. :noid:

Consider it surrendering to truth.

 

[PureX]

In the end, I think the truth eventually 'floats to the surface'. By that I mean the more we accept a proposed truth, and then act on it in the world, the more likely it will be to show itself to be true or untrue.

The theory of evolution is a good example. It was clearly an intelligent and elegant explanation of a biological reality even when it was first proposed. But at that time, there was little gathered data based directly on the proposition. However, because the proposition was so 'elegant', people began to apply it to all sorts of tangential questions regarding the origins of species. And so over time it was tested and retested, not in exactly the same ways, but in so many inter-related ways that it has shown itself to be a very functional conception of biological reality.

I think this is ultimately the way all propositions end up becoming 'true' for us. In the end, it simply "works". It works more often then not, in more and more tangential situations. And by "works", I mean it predicts an outcome that manifests when the proposition is applied to reality.

We humans don't ever get to know what the truth is, really. But we can test various proposed truths to see how they work. And from that we can generate some general idea of what's true, and what's not. But that takes time, and experience, and the willingness to try out different proposed truths.

And that last part, there, is the big 'catch'. Many of us are not willing to try out different ideas and concepts of the truth, to see which one's "float" in the end. And instead, we let our egos cause us to defend whatever we currently think the truth is from any possible alternative or clarification. And so we stop seeking the truth. And we become intellectually and ideologically entrenched, instead.

And to my mind, a human being that is not seeking, and growing in understanding, is not living the life of a human being. He's just living to exist, like a dumb animal.

 

[Town Heretic]

What is a source?

A source is a piece of evidence to support your argument or idea from somewhere other than yourself.

In some parts of the country a source is what you ladled over spaghetti. Just to clarify. Not here. Here it would more closely resemble a multiplicity of cutting instruments.

Why is a source important?

If you're French it's everything. Right. Else, we agree.

What is the difference between a biased and unbiased source?

No such animal. It's just a matter of degree and intent, which I'll grant is pretty important. I may be skeptical of a sociological examination of race by a PhD, but I'd be much more skeptical of one by the Grand Wizard of the local Klan chapter, by way of...

Unbiased sources are traditionally based on empirical evidence.

Gathered, presented and interpreted by people with bias, which is also important. And unless the question is of a fairly limited variety, that interpretation and inherent bias isn't inconsiderable. Again, not to suggest an all things being equal approach, only noting that you can't move the boat without dipping an oar.

Additionally, they go through a series of academic exercises to ensure accuracy. This includes peer reviews, independent studies and surveys. Finally, these sources will be supported by an academic or scientific institutions. These sources are not completely infallible, but they are held in higher regard than other sources alone.

Peer review is a great safeguard, unless those peers have a broad bias as a product of educations that are founded in similar assumptions, as has been the case, embarrassingly, in nearly every discipline over time.

So, next time I bug you about a source, there is a very simple reason why. I don’t believe you.

Can't it just be because you find the position unusual or interesting, but want something more than the interesting word of a stranger so you can look into it and either be convinced or feel better about your rejection?

:cheers:

 

[PureX]

Gathered, presented and interpreted by people with bias, which is also important. And unless the question is of a fairly limited variety, that interpretation and inherent bias isn't inconsiderable. Again, not to suggest an all things being equal approach, only noting that you can't move the boat without dipping an oar.

Exactamundo! And very well stated to boot!

Peer review is a great safeguard, unless those peers have a broad bias as a product of educations that are founded in similar assumptions, as has been the case, embarrassingly, in nearly every discipline over time.

Correct again. Although I would add that over time, and through experience, the truth of things tends to float to the top of the proposition, pile.