random rant.
I was rifling through some research the other day and one of the things that is a huge pet peeve of mine is that people have this conceptual idea that research is absolute truth. I am amused when people do research and find conclusions that back thier own perspectives and then use the backing of science to prove thier point.
It's actually pretty easy to do legitimate scientific research with a very slanted population to support your hypothesis and reach "conclusions" that are acceptable to you.
One of the strongest academic skills gained going through school isn't about doing research, but more about knowing how to sift through the troves of information to find real nuggests of science.
One example. We took a look at this research project that made this rehab program look as if it was really awesome. But on closer examination, the measures used to determine success were really vague, the population questioned were GRADUATES of the program, and the statistical means were all flurbed up.
I mean come on if they interviewed only graduates of the program then the results are all going to be skewed cause they were successful in the program. Very chicken and the egg here.
I was just surprised that this paper actually got published.
Anyhow moral of the story. read through research and question the validity of each method of how the research is done. Good papers will mention how thier paper sucked and had deficiencies with recommendations on how make it better next time.
Reaserch, much like interpretations of the bible, are just as easily manipulated.
It's actually pretty easy to do legitimate scientific research with a very slanted population to support your hypothesis and reach "conclusions" that are acceptable to you.
One of the strongest academic skills gained going through school isn't about doing research, but more about knowing how to sift through the troves of information to find real nuggests of science.
One example. We took a look at this research project that made this rehab program look as if it was really awesome. But on closer examination, the measures used to determine success were really vague, the population questioned were GRADUATES of the program, and the statistical means were all flurbed up.
I mean come on if they interviewed only graduates of the program then the results are all going to be skewed cause they were successful in the program. Very chicken and the egg here.
I was just surprised that this paper actually got published.
Anyhow moral of the story. read through research and question the validity of each method of how the research is done. Good papers will mention how thier paper sucked and had deficiencies with recommendations on how make it better next time.
Reaserch, much like interpretations of the bible, are just as easily manipulated.