To wonder why a person who claims they have done 'extensive research'...

[Newrunner29]

...belives they are as knowledgeable as someone who has dedicated their career and have the relevant professional qualifications in a subject? It really fustrates me and makes me concerned for future.
I see on the Internet all the time this 'extensive research' line and think, what makes u more knowledgeable and also the line could literally mean anything.

I found this twitter feed which is loosely linked, even when confronted this person continues to spead misinformation. i would love to know why?
I would say there is a level of arrogance to it to.

The poster on twitter just needed to be asked for a link to the research he was talking about - we know there was none - that would have stopped him.

People saying they work in research - I find it hard to believe an expert in say sociology could easily use research on geology - yes, you can use the stats and possibly understand the conclusion but you couldn't talk knowledgeably about the results I wouldn't think.

And doing your own research? Definitely you can but you have to know the provider of the information is genuine and doesnt gain from the info eg VW and their faked exhaust emissions, Grenfel Tower debacle etc etc

"In fact, the leading experts in Asia (who had been through a couple of pandemics) were advising that masks were necessary. "

Yes, I know. By 'the experts' I meant the ones here, the ones we were supposed to listen to.

"The "experts" in WHO and the UK who were advising against were doing so for political or other reasons. It is the case that leading science is the best advice there is for things like pandemics - it is a question of making sure the expert is speaking as a scientist, if that makes sense."

Partly, yes. Because there was a PPE shortage they thought it best to leave masks for hospital settings, but they actually went further than this and lied to us, claiming that masks didn't work in the community. No wonder people don't trust the experts after such manipulation.

"it is a question of making sure the expert is speaking as a scientist, if that makes sense.""

Even then, it's not clear. Some scientists genuinely believed that no using masks perfectly eg putting them in our pockets and things like that, would make them not work or even be worse than no masks. These were not political arguments, but differences of opinion among experts. The fact is that science cannot explain everything and the experts don't always know.

There are plenty plenty of scientists who will happily make statements about things which are nothing to do with their area of expertise but you rarely hear them saying I’m not sure about this, it’s not my area and then the media are spouting it as if it’s the truth because a ‘scientist’ said it. That’s not been very helpful during this pandemic and some ‘experts’ have just turned into media tarts and Twitter nuts. It’s also been shocking how some of them slag each other off on Twitter. Not really helping the trust issue.

I hate the phrase ‘I’ve done my research’ on the internet. In the vast majority of cases it appears to be confined to social media sites.
I also hate educated at the University of Life or the School of Hard Knocks. There isoften a correlation.

That Twitter excerpt is funny - I love how they have too many qualifications to list.

I agree that the internet now allows people to get hold of information easily that leads to some thinking their opinions carry the same weight as qualified people like scientists.

But it's here on MN all the time. There are some generally accepted 'truths' on here which are repeated and rolled out irrespective of the evidence or the facts of the matter.

Study 3 years for a degree
Study 3 more years for a PHD
Start work in laboratory
Spend years studying problem
Form hypothesis, gather evidence
Test hypothesis, form conclusions
Report findings, clear peer review
Findings published, reported in press

Guy on internet: "Bullshit"

The MMR wasn't introduced as part of the vaccination schedule in the UK until 1988 and Andrew Wakefield published his paper in 1998, @KittenKong.

If you were at college in 1986, maybe it was the DTP vaccine encephalopathy scare you are thinking about? TBF, that started in the 1970s and by 1986 there was plenty of research to disprove it.

@chesirecat99

The MMR wasn't introduced as part of the vaccination schedule in the UK until 1988 and Andrew Wakefield published his paper in 1998, *@KittenKong*.

If you were at college in 1986, maybe it was the DTP vaccine encephalopathy scare you are thinking about? TBF, that started in the 1970s and by 1986 there was plenty of research to disprove it.

My sister was in the first or second year cohort to have the MMR vaccine and she was born in 1981.

There wasn’t a vaccine scare around it in the 80s as far as I’m aware - it was considered a very good vaccine! I was two years too early for it, and had both measles and mumps badly aged 5.

Highly recommend reading “The Irrational Ape” by David Robert Grimes. It talks at length about why people fall for conspiracy theories, and why so many people seem to lack critical thinking ability. It’s very good and also explains how we can improve our own ability to analyse things.

www.goodreads.com/book/show/44584488-the-irrational-ape?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=5CPdT2PxUN&rank=1

I think there is a thing, where it seems to be wrong that you dont know something, or asking a question is bad and I have noticed this sort of thing has been increasing, people just dont want to say, I have no fucking clue.

On that, they then have a google and read the first thing they come across and take that as the proper answer without, doing a few hours of research.

@Newrunner29

I guess another thing thats changed is this whole there are now sides to a fact. So the sky is blue , before facts were just out there , noone argued for or against, they were just observed. People may not have liked the sky being blue but they would accepted the fact. (Like we should need to accept a fact! ) I feel like now everything is up for debate. Facts are now somehow allowed to be opnions. Its very dangerous for our society. The words agenda and bias gets thrown around all the time. I guess social media and people choosing their news now by who they follow , crazy times

except the sky isn't blue scijinks.gov/blue-sky/

I have no idea how to counter this - I do not agree with ignoring, these people need to be trounced every time they surface, otherwise the nature of current day social media means that 'alternative facts' gain currency.

I don't think I was ever actually taught about 'scientific method' - it was just the way things were done 40 years ago in my first degree (chemistry) I do think there would be benefit in teaching this at secondary level, whether or not the students are science oriented.
ie:
Collect observations/review information
Postulate theory
Design experiment to test theory
Perform experiment
If results do not fit theory check experiment and if results still valid then junk/amend theory.
publish results.

The key point being that publication is a single datum not proof/fact, only when the experiment and results have been repeated by others and the theory subjected to analysis by multiple others can the datum begin to be relied on.

This necessarily takes time and the 'extensive researchers' that leap on a new/recent paper are the same ones that 'don't trust experts' when another paper disagrees.

IMHO Understanding the difficulties and impossibilities of performing repeatable experiments outside of the hard sciences is vital to bringing scepticism and caution into gung-ho adoption of theories in social, economic, managerial, organisational etc domains. (cf monetarism, austerity, phonics..)

"too many to put here "
🤣🤣🤣
Qualifications in YouTube videos, Reddit forums and batcrap crazy Facebook posts she means

Andrew Wakefield is a case in point. He was a fully trained gastro specialist at a well respected hospital. Even the hugely respected Lancet published his purported findings over a link between gastric problems and autism (not in this case doing due diligence on his number of subjects, funding etc until advised). His journey to anti vaxx guru is now on Wikipedia. So yes, even "experts" can be wrong or working for Big Pharma (in his case I understand he could have sold medical kits to parents concerned about childhood development) . But despite the fact he has been exposed and AFAIK cannot practise as a doctor in the UK and the US he still has a devoted following.

Again, go figure

@OrganicBagel

But you don’t need qualifications to do your own research. What a cop out! I don’t need qualifications to research car safety. I don’t need to run my own crash test dummy trials or be a qualified engineer. I need to read the “research” that has already been done and THAT is my research. That’s what most research is! I work in a Uni research centre where academics do research which mainly involves reading results of trials and other people’s research papers and making their own conclusions, or analysing data from other people’s studies They don’t run the trials themselves but it doesn’t make them not researchers! I have a degree in statistics and policy analysis. I my doesn’t make me more or less of a researcher than someone who studied medicine or politics. Research isn’t a particular science! Anyone can do research. It is gathering data and information and making conclusions.

Indeed, yes, anyone can do research. However, whether they have the skills or ability to rigorously and critically evaluate the data and information they find, or even distinguish between fact and opinion, is decidedly debatable.

It's post-modernism and it started in the universities. Oversimplified, it means there's no such things as facts anymore and everything is up for grabs. Remember Gove saying everyone has had enough of experts? That was a few years pre-Covid, of course.

Apologies for the "anymore"! I know there is no such compound adverb. I meant any more.

Yes, you're right, @Boysofsummerhavegone, the MMR was available (it was licensed in 1971) and was trialled in the UK but it wasn't part of the routine childhood vaccination schedule in the UK until 1988. I'm surprised you weren't vaccinated against measles if you were born in 1979 as it was part of the routine childhood schedule from 1968. You should have been vaccinated with the single measles vaccine as a baby and had a booster before you started school.

As much as I agree about that people who claim to have done "extensive research" on social media rather than scientific journals often have no idea what they are talking about, I find it equally irritating when people who have the knowledge and ability to debunk things don't. Why didn't "Richard" start with an explanation of why she is wrong rather than post " absolutely none of that is true" and get into an argument about his qualifications..?

[quote Realyorkshiretea]@MereDintofPandiculation yes absolutely. The collective benefit will be much more noticeable. But this poster was claiming to ‘see’ the difference in health between her own bf children, and bottle fed children.[/quote]
Well, maybe there was a difference . Doesn't demonstrate that it was a result of the breast milk, though.

I remember a mum at school, who is a medical negligence solicitor, claiming that she knew more about medicine than most doctors because she had read so many medical reports.
So there you go, no need for 5yr undergraduate course followed by at least 5 yrs post grad training.

@MereDintofPandiculation quite. She was adamant it was through. And that I’m horrible.

Angrymum22 - is a loved that... every day:

Scuse me - I have this little rash...
Hello! Can you prescribe me something for my piles?
I have this itch...
My mother has this nasty discharge...
What’s the thinking around vasectomies...
Do you know about scabies?
Look at THIS (as I unbutton my trousers...)

@Angrymum22

I remember a mum at school, who is a medical negligence solicitor, claiming that she knew more about medicine than most doctors because she had read so many medical reports. So there you go, no need for 5yr undergraduate course followed by at least 5 yrs post grad training.

To an extent, that could be true. She may well have more specialist knowledge in some areas than a doctor who is a consultant in a different field.

Phew it's not just me. I HATE it when people say they're going to do their own research. What are you going to set up your own lab and design and carry out experiments? Conduct a Cochrane review? Literature review? No?

Sit the fuck down then

@wigglerose

Phew it's not just me. I HATE it when people say they're going to do their own research. What are you going to set up your own lab and design and carry out experiments? Conduct a Cochrane review? Literature review? No?

Sit the fuck down then

This