You can't do your own research without doing your homework first \ stacker news ~science

pull down to refresh

You can't do your own research without doing your homework first bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/do-your-own-research-doing-your-homework/

202 sats \ 8 comments \ @south_korea_ln 25 Jun science

Key Takeaways

Many of us frequently embrace conclusions that are contrary to the scientific consensus, instead preferring to find out what the facts are for ourselves and draw our conclusions based on what we find.

Yet this strategy is usually doomed to failure, as nearly all of us aren’t even competently equipped to do the homework, or accurately understanding the foundational background, necessary to even comprehend the issue at stake.

What most of us call “doing our own research” is wholly unrelated to research of any type, and instead exemplifies what happens when you haven’t even done your homework correctly: we get it wrong when it counts the most.

I've always found the DYOR meme in the Bitcoin community a bit weird. I always rely on other people's research to assess what i think is trustworthy or not.

It probably depends on how one defines research. If it is researching which authority in a certain field to trust, then yes, i agree with the meme. But if it means binge watching hundreds of shady YouTuber videos and drawing conclusions from this, it becomes much harder.

It takes years to become an expert in something. And even then, that little something is extremely specialised and specific. In my own lab, i rely on colleagues' expertise for 80 percent of what I do, as here too, I'm only an expert in a very small subfield of our own small field.

Gone are the days where someone could be an expert in different unrelated fields. That's also probably i have a hard time following the teachings of people like Saifedean who are not only experts in Austrian economics, but also in nutrition, art, medicine, etc...

So, what does DYOR mean to you, fellow Stacker?

view all related items

145 sats \ 1 reply \ @Signal312 23h

The covid response completely destroyed ANY trust at all that I had in the medical/pharma establishment.

Now the only people that I trust are those who, during Covid, and at great personal risk/cost, told the truth, and especially told what they were seeing as a result of the vaccine.

What is really mind-blowing to me, what I didn't understand before, is how vicious and aggressive the establishment is, towards those who undermine the narrative. The truth tellers - in other words, those who pursue real science - i.e. who question things - had their medical license taken away, etc.

This applies to the covid jab. And also in my experience, a lot of experts who got off the "climate crisis" bandwagon were also viciously cancelled and defunded. If you're a climatologist and don't believe the current narrative, you're SOL and your career is over. Younger scientists sense this, and toe the party line. So, you're NOT GETTING the truth.

I'm happy to do my own research. And especially since I've become carnivore, I see first hand how much improved my health is without carbs, and then I see the recommendations from the "experts" (eat low fat, eat high carb, avoid red meat completely) and I'm very much reinforced in my skepticism of "experts".

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 22h

Can't speak for climate and health science, every time I bring up this topic, it shows they are really different from my own experience.

By the way, are there still many experts who are anti-fat and pro-carb? In my experience, talking with my sister who graduated as a mainstream doctor, it doesn't seem this is the main narrative anymore. It seems to be mostly focused on low sugar. Sugar and processed food are the root of most evil in current-day cuisine. And that's agreed upon by the mainstream. Fat is not the big evil anymore; that was the case during my parents' generation when I was growing up.

As for (red) meat, the mainstream is trying not to push it too much as it is likely not sustainable if everyone lives on beef alone. It is a very resource-intensive type of cattle (this is true, regardless of whether you believe in climate change). But from a health perspective, people who understand "a percentage on a percentage" realize that the supposed increase in cancers, etc, is negligible in the big picture and understand the benefits of eating something that is by definition full of nutrients.

This is based on my experience in Korea and Europe. I can't speak for the prevailing narrative in the US.

124 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker 25 Jun

The author laments the growing distrust of experts, leading to a trend in people telling each other to DYOR. I also lament the growing distrust of experts, but instead of placing the blame on laymen, I place the blame on the experts themselves. They did it to themselves.

The solution isn't to tell the laymen that you shouldn't question the experts, it should be to remind the experts that their job is to present the truth as best they can figure out. And to do this they should:

Argue from their primary source material. i.e. What are the studies and experiments which lead them to believe what they believe. Instead of appealing to your credentials, appeal to the evidence! I don't care whether or not you think the audience will understand, you should appeal to the evidence and not to your expertise
Resist putting commercial and political interests above the truth
Stop trying to be a social engineer and just stick to truth telling

The social engineering part was especially egregious during COVID, where many lies were told in order to engineer a social outcome (like the initial guidance on masking) instead of simply sticking to what is scientifically known.

Another aspect of this is assessment of confidence levels. Scientific consensus may revolve around some consensus parameter value, but that doesn't say anything about the degree of confidence of that parameter. Accurate scientific reporting should include confidence estimates as best can be determined.

Lastly, to go along with that, there is a lot of methodological uncertainty too. In some fields like economics, even our best models are crude approximations at best. The same is true for anything social/behavioral. That includes anthropogenic climate change and epidemiology

I will just put it this way, @south_korea_ln. If the CDC (Center for Disease Control), FDA (Food & Drug Administration), and AMA (American Medical Association), all came out and said that a new drug marketed by Pfizer is totally safe and effective, would you automatically trust them? Or would you feel the need to DYOR?

30 sats \ 2 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 25 Jun

Thanks for your thoughtful answer. I agree with everything you say. It is common sense.

And I agree that people like Fauci, who had a sinister hidden political agenda of not divulging that they were funding the gain-of-function research carried out at Wuhan, which most likely led to the (accidental) lab leaks, did a lot to increase the distrust in scientists.

I just hope that sufficient scientists will still emerge who focus on facts, and facts only, so that people can start trusting them again.

I did (and still do) have a lot of trust in the mRNA technology. I did talk to a fellow researcher whom I knew from my uni time, who went to work on vaccine research at Oxford. I know he is in it for the truth and the truth only. The most pure researcher I know. Also, one who really understands the tech very well.

I know shit about mRNA. But I know that I can trust him. So, I trust mRNA.

Indeed, it's a pity that the current atmosphere has led to a situation where many people feel they can't trust the experts anymore. As you say, I also lay the blame on the experts, but I'd also put some blame on certain politicians, dishonest YouTubers, etc.

There is no simple answer to this. As a scientist, the only thing I can do is engage honestly and thoughtfully with laypeople who question some of the research. I am in the luxury position that I'm not in a field where many people question our ethics. It doesn't have much to do with social sciences, but I wish to show that the majority of scientists are still there for the truth and the truth only. For sure, not for the money~~

58 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 25 Jun

Yeah, there are so many directions we could go with this. It's something I think about a lot.

One sad thing is that the scientists who are most truth-motivated are often the least likely to pursue positions of political leadership or influence. So the ones you're most likely to hear on TV are often not the most trustworthy ones.

Another aspect is that scientists need to fight the social media battle, but they don't have time since they all have full time jobs as researchers and academics. I think "social media influencer" needs to become an acceptable career path that can still qualify as an "expert in the field". I think some people have managed to do it, like Veritasium and 3blue1brown, but they work in the least politically charged fields.

Speaking of politically charged fields, experts also need to allow social media influencers to question the consensus, within bounds. You can't just simply shut down all debate that doesn't fall into some narrowly defined band that is called consensus. What matters more is how the debate is conducted. And when you attack someone, attack their arguments, don't attack their credentials (at least, not exclusively.)

I think one problem I saw during COVID was that the "experts" would jump on and cancel anyone who questioned the prevailing narrative, even though their questioning was very reasonable and not at all crazy. When you start lumping people like Jay Battacharaya in the same camp as the people pushing ivermectin, it's no wonder people don't know who to trust!

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 22h

I think some people have managed to do it, like Veritasium and 3blue1brown, but they work in the least politically charged fields.

True, STEM and math are much easier to do this, without running the risk of getting cancelled.

And when you attack someone, attack their arguments, don't attack their credentials (at least, not exclusively.)

Something I need to be better at. My first instinct is still to judge based on credentials before digging deeper.

When you start lumping people like Jay Battacharaya in the same camp as the people pushing ivermectin

I'll have to look up who Jay Battacharaya is~~

Yeah, there are so many directions we could go with this.

I'll leave it at this, as indeed, too many directions to go with this.

76 sats \ 1 reply \ @fourrules 23h

DYOR doesn't mean "trust your gut and whatever confirms your biases". It means "you are responsible for your beliefs and their consequences, you will always trust authorities, but you choose the authorities and there is no way to escape that fact, so you are responsible for the choice".

So if a doctor tells you to take a vaccine, you are responsible for taking the vaccine if it was a decision based upon deference to their authority. If you instead go home and watch YouTube videos you are deferring to authorities, or people you perceive to be more authoritative than the doctor, and are thus responsible for the decision, not the person who told you.

The health system used to recognise this basic fact, and hence informed consent was a foundational principle of modern healthcare. But public health, a branch of public relations, which itself was a sanitised propaganda industry, took a different view, that you are just an animal and therefore cannot be held responsible for your decisions or considered sovereign.

DYOR is just another form of NYK-NYC.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 22h

I like this way of putting things and explaining the DYOR meme.