So, about that research

[Guest219794]

I have quoted below an explanation that is well written, and being widely circulated.  The only thing is, if somebody could figure out a way to soften it farther to make it more palatable for those who need it.  Personally- I can't.  It turns out, that despite this ethos being largely promoted by a group who brought you "*uck your feelings", many of these folks are very sensitive.  And, as is pointed out here endlessly, one must not look down one's nose at them.  Instead, embrace them. (Metaphorically.  Don't actually embrace the unvaccinated.)

BTW- the critical thinking skills she advocates are applicable here in this forum.  Before responding to something, look at the source.  By all means, check me out to see whether you think I am legit.  

 

A post credited to Linda Gamble Spadaro, a licensed mental health counselor in Florida, sums this up quite well:

Please stop saying you researched it.

You didn’t research anything and it is highly probable you don’t know how to do so.

Did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No?

Did you at least take each article one by one and look into the source (that would be the author, publisher and funder), then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies?

Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of references and apply the same source of scrutiny to them?

No? Then you didn’t…research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little or no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that jived with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subconsciously applied your emotional filters and called it proof.”

This doesn’t even go into institutional review boards (IRB’s), also known as independent ethics committees, ethical review boards, or touch on peer-review, or meta-analyses.

To sum it up, a healthy dose of scepticism is/can be a good thing…as long as we are also applying it to those things we wish/think to be true, and not just those things we choose to be sceptical towards, or in denial of.

Most importantly, though, is to apply our best critical thinking skills to ensure we are doing our best to suss out the facts from the fiction, the myths, and outright BS in pseudoscience and politics.

Misinformation is being used as a tool of war and to undermine our public health, and it is up to each of us to fight against it.

 

[JBMmom, MSN, NP]

As someone who has co-authored and peer edited a few scientific papers during my pre-nursing career, I have to say that even when I read a "scientific" paper, I have a healthy dose of skepticism about the questions, the methods, the data, and the conclusions. I've learned how data can be analyzed in order to change, to a certain degree, the conclusions that are drawn. I've learned how the questions can be altered to fit the data, and vice versa. There is really VERY little straight up data, almost everyone has a preconceived notion of the paper they want to write and then they proceed so that's the paper they can write. 

For the majority of people, even people with degrees in the fields related to the paper being written, the ability to critically examine and dissect any research paper, takes hours. It's tedious, and it gets boring. So we rely on others that we trust to go through that process and give their expert opinions. There's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion, it's just another layer of opinion that may or may not influence the message. 

[Guest219794]

42 minutes ago, JBMmom said:

we rely on others that we trust to go through that process and give their expert opinions.

Absolutely.  The key here is "expert".

  There are a couple of fields in which I am an expert.  Virology is not one of them.  Therefore, I rely on the analysis of experts.