Written By:
- Date published:
8:08 am, July 18th, 2025 - 69 comments
Categories: journalism, making shit up, Propaganda, social media -
Tags: science, social media
“I did my own research”?
No. You didn’t.
You can’t!
You can do your own observations. But you need to be aware of the many reasons including confirmation bias, small sample errors, and “Dunning Kruger” why you may be wrong.
1. Did you carry out a study of the existing literature and research, not just the one study out of hundreds that confirms your opinion.? (For a small piece I research I was involved with, that alone took months).
2. Looked carefully at the state of existing knowledge?
3. Examined your own assumptions and bias? Educated yourself on the subject. (Takes years)
4. Formulated a hypothesis, (an idea of what has to happen for it to be true).
5. Devised tests of the hypothesis that are repeatable and can be confirmed by others?
6. Falsified it. (Asked what things would look like if it is true/untrue?)
Did you really even do number 1? (Remember it can take years to just catch up with one subject)
Or. Did you just repeat what some Cookers with the latest axe to grind on Facebook, told you. On balance, people who didn’t fail science class and who spent years studying and researching a subject, are far more likely to be correct.
When we fly in a plane, we rely on decades of research and engineering from people who are experts in their fields. When we rely on reckons, accountants, lawyers and wannabee CEO’s (Boeing 737) they start falling out of the sky.
When someone says, “I did my own research” it tells me immediately that they have NFI what research involves.
A fact is information minus emotion.
An opinion is information plus experience.
Ignorance is an opinion lacking information.
Stupidity is an opinion that ignores a fact.
"True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.”
KJT, have thought about this, (and a lot more) in my life.
There was : "I think therefore I am" ?
Even "the more I read the less I know" (of course much of that depends on what you read : )
I like Einstein's….(well its attributed to him, and sounds much like : )
As you say it pays to look. At everything. I would also add be aware. An inner voice of Reason helps. As in..All things being equal..does this make sense?
Sadly, not common at all….
The above highlights the flaws in presenting one link as the statement for whatever opinion is being presented..
IMHO..
Far better to produce the idea…and if readers are interested in what has been said…either for or against…is so simple to do basic research…
The point is, it is NOT "simple"" to do research!
Snap : )
Read for meaning is a lesson from an English teacher I liked : )
I did say 'basic' research…
As in is alcohol carcinogenic..?
Answer: the world health organisation sez it causes 7 types of cancer…
See..!..a simple Google search will confirm/deny that…
That is ‘basic’ research..
And also…we are going to have to learn to rely on AI increasingly…to do that research for us ..
this is a really good example of the limits of "I did my own research".
Assuming the WHO reference is true, it will be context dependent: how alcohol is consumed, what kind etc.
And I bet I can find some research that shows red wine isn't associated with an increase risk or rate of cancer.
What you just did is state an opinion as if it were fact, threw out an appeal to authority without any kind of back up, and said it was valid because it's basic research. With reference to your OM comment, this isn't conducive to robust debate.
Line 1:no…it's an example of something relatively easy to confirm/disprove..
Line 2:no…I am surprised you haven't seen this..as I deliberately chose something that had been all over the news lately ..
Line3: ..and sorry to inform you..but that bullshit that red wine is somehow good for you…is bullshit..it's as bad as the others ..
It's all poisonous muck ..
,(and could I note that your certainty in being able to find a link saying red wine is good for you .. isn't that an example of what I have been banging on about..the inherent uncertainties of a single link..?)
Line 4: no…I tried to show an example that was easy to prove/disprove..as in did the who just say that..?
And I am unclear as to the meaning of yr reference to my o.m comment..
(Heh..)..make line para..I was viewing in the new layout..
And re your claim that cancer from alcohol depends on 'how it was consumed'…?
Do you have any evidence to back that up..?
..or is it just your opinion..?
sure. I actually did a quick google before I made the comment. Here's the link
https://sph.brown.edu/news/2025-03-06/red-and-white-wine-cancer-risk
I went and read your link..did you..?
Because they are comparing red wine with white wine…
..with the built in certainties that white wine is definitely carcinogenic..(!)
..and further reading would put you off white wine forever.. especially if you are a woman…
And if it's your link vs. the w.h.o. conclusions…from a far more extensive research sweep than your link…?
No contest..really…eh..?
when you produce the mythical WHO evidence, we can look at it.
This is why we ask for links. Because instead of us debating the claims about alcohol, we're now heading down a stupid argument about things claimed.
I didn't claim red wine is good for you. Reread what I said.
Here's the link to the OM convo where I explain why we ask for evidence and links,
https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-18-07-25/#comment-2038876
Bring back the era of encyclopaedias and reference books, I say. When 'doing your own research' required multiple trips to the brick and mortar library and strong upper body strength, and if you were lucky enough, a set of World Book or Encyclopaedia Brittanica at home, that (for the most) contained facts.
And an education system that taught us basic research skills.
I think a lot about if the internet is a net benefit or harm, but having to go to a library for knowledge is a barrier for many. Even back in the day.
Yes, I am aware of all the negatives to that scenario, I was there at the time. Sometimes words don't translate too well via a screen and I guess my 'suggestion' was one of those times.
My point being, when the internet wasn't even a concept, we had to find other ways to research, and we did. Regrettably, the concept of accessibility didn't exist in those days.
It would be nice, however, if having to read hard-copy books were a part of research/studying, not an optional extra.
yeah, sorry about that, the tendency sometimes to take things too literally.
I do think accessability has long been understood, just not so broadly.
Re other ways of accessing knowledge, libraries/books/magazines, television, radio, going to talks, and talking with people. I'm not sure that meant better understanding of science, it was all just slower and so less damage was done by lack of science literacy.
No Kay …just no…
Yes Kay …just yes… it’s never too late and almost never too early to start steaming.
https://eduseed.in/2024/10/04/developing-research-skills-in-kids/
Or you could just Google/AI it – moderation in all things.
I get what you are saying here, and agree there is a huge problem with people misusing science and academic research. I can also understand how frustrating it must be for people that do formal research and/or have good science literacy.
I think we also have to recognise that the word research has multiple meanings in English. I do research when I write a post for TS.
When people say "I did my own research" they're using the term in the way I just did about post writing: reading, thinking, bringing ideas and information together in a coherent and meaningful way. Obviously they're not saying they hired a lab did their own RCTs.
If we frame people doing their own research as other, and mad, two things happen. One is we create more social and political division. The other is more people get turned off science. This is one area where we desperately need to call people in.
We also desperately need public adult education in science literacy. Imagine if we had freely available/accessible support for people to learn how to understand a scientific paper, or groups where people could discuss topical issues and get the various perspectives where the science ones were explained in non-patronising and engaging ways?
"We also desperately need public adult education in science literacy."
And statistics. My pet hate is science reporters ignoring absolute vs relative risk, eg "Eating X increases your risk of cancer Y by 20%!" is a news story, apparently. The relative increase seems significant. But if you were to report the absolute risk, for example "Eating X increases your risk of cancer Y from 0.01 to 0.012!", that doesn't look like a news story to anyone.
god yes.
I reckon there must be better ways to explain things to the general public. It's the same thing with ICT. Geeks really aren't the right people to explain stuff (usually).
And what I call civics. How national and local governments work, what is democracy, rule of law, equality of opportunity etc etc race relations etc.
Exactery @KJT !!!! 100% maaaate!
"Or. Did you just repeat what some Cookers with the latest axe to grind on Facebook, told you."
The best (or perhaps worst) manifestation of the 'I gone done my research' is the Sovereign Citizen.
Thankfully they appear to be dying an unnatural death as they often face the reality of a prison cell.
Another manifestation of the 'I gone done my research' is that of the plagiarist. Often they have their agenda to push, and it's better than those of a reporter ON THE GROUND simply stating what they have/had witnessed.
Dem Kapiti Coast purple crystals are rattling their lycra-clad arses off – often with their designer-statement poochie woochie dogs in tow.
no, they're not dying out, they're out of your view and organising. The more we other those people, the stronger they get. The left cannot win this way.
You could be right. I try to avoid them like the plague.
3 months in the Bay Area last year, they were pretty evident although (thankfully) they were the subject of ridicule. But then that's CA for ya. Not too many banjo twangers there 😉
The paradox of "tolerating the intolerant".
indeed. It's the only way that I can see.
We have actual fascists, "dog whistling" their deluded followers to committ verbal and physical violence. Mostly, in NZ, against young brown women in leadership positions so far. But the "fragile masculinity" that motivates much of the attacks on young women leaders, seems to be directed by the same bad actors behind the scenes, that are pushing anti AGW response rhetoric, anti-vaccination, anti-science, racist and right wing extremist economic and social solutions.
Tolerance, so far, has only enabled them.
Their followers may be persuadable. They, are not.
what do you want to do with them? Export them? Lock em up? Execute them?
If you want to see the end game, look at the US. Or Gaza.
For every actual fascist there are many more people being swayed by their inclusion and welcome while the left continues to ostracise them. We aren't winning.
and just to be clear, because it seems to me that there isn't clarity on this, people seem to be equating tolerance with acceptance of ideology. What I am talking about is calling people in that can still be called in, while we have time. The people doing fascist things can still be called out for what they are doing, those things aren't incompatible.
I would rather. Educate them! Finland's classes in identifying propaganda and bs for example???
It was in the NZ curriculum briefly. How to look discerningly at attempts to propagandise people, such as advertisements, and political speeches.
But. The USA, Russia and, of course, Gaza, shows what happens when fascist liers, gain power.
People die!
cool, can you please talk about that some more?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/28/fact-from-fiction-finlands-new-lessons-in-combating-fake-news
https://issues.org/finland-education-misinformation-social-resilience-kivinen/ "in Finland we make every child a scientist".
“Teaching research skills and encouraging inquiry from the earliest ages can build social resilience to misleading information”.
that would be so excellent.
Note. Encouraging enquiry was/is a future of the NZ standards for the teaching profession. The Teachers council. https://teachingcouncil.nz/professional-practice/our-code-our-standards/
Now in the process of being revised. I suspect with a strong push from the Coalition of Cockups.
Those classes sound good – people would still tend to believe what they want to believe, but maybe this would give some pause for thought and cause them to examine and debate the arguments / evidence more critically, before starting down the rabbit hole.
“Actual fascists” I have yet to meet a fascist let alone an “actual fascist”. I’m thinking that you mean “people who have political views and opinions that I disagree with”.
The Chch mosque murderer is a fascist. This man is another high profile fascist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Arps
There have been active neo-nazi groups in NZ.
None of the objections to them can be categorised as 'political disagreement', although obviously most people would disagree with their politics.
Okay I see where you’re coming from.
I’m a bit pedantic, so I’d say that those two have very serious personality disorders, and are quite clearly individuals who have been consumed by evil.
Calling them fascists gives them a prestige they definitely don’t deserve.
My point is that too often people are accused of being far right/far left, fascist/communist, when they’re not.
completely agree with your last sentence. In this context, there are actual fascists involved. Those are people with a political will and activism who want to rid the world of classes of people they don't like, and impose order that they control
The Chch shooter and Arps are no doubt evil psychopaths. The problem is they are also politicised around fascism, that's the dangerous part in terms of who they recruit in the future and what they and their followers do. In the US, those kinds of people are in charge of the government.
This would be more appropriate under my other post.
However.
If you havn't seen the wannabee fascists in our midst, I suggest you havn't been paying attention.
There are fascists or wannabee fascists in NZ. Who obviously don't like being "outed". Some are in our Government.
The same utilitarian, callous and antisocial disregard for peoples lives and well being, inherent in Fascism, is apparent in actions such as putting thousands out of work, then making it much harder to access welfare and housing at the same time. Watch what they do next.
Consider Hanna Arendt. “The banality of evil”.
Fascists prefer labels like "Libertarian". They tend to be good at hiding their intentions amongst high sounding words. "Free speech", etc.
Meanwhile, in the USA, the Government is recruiting "Brownshirts"!!
The UK and Australia is criminalising protest. Our own IPCA thinks we should have to ask police permission to protest.
In the 1940's we fought fascists. Now. We vote for them.
Yes got it in one Terry.
I'm a woman and I am NOT a fascist because I believe that another woman is not doing a good job at being mayor. Nothing to do with young or old, brown or white, male or female. If it was a man who was failing I'd say the same thing.
And failing WCC is 12% rates increases this year, cumulative 47% over 3 years. Those are figures that bare no resemblance to the 3 year cumulative rates of inflation. Though apparently I am a fascist to think this because someone else (on another board I hasten to add) thinks she is doing a great job.
It has everything to do with competence. It has everything to do with the council she leads. My thoughts about her competence or the Council incompetence have nothing to do with fascism.
It has everything to do with the idea that budgets are a dirty word and the strange belief that ratepayers 'gotta cough' for every idea you have.
On average Wellington ratepayers rates increased by 12% this year while Whanganui's increased by 2.2%. Auckland 5.8% and Chch 6.6%
The 3 year cumulative increases are incredible for Wellington at 47%, one of the highest in the country & just behind Queenstown-Lakes at 50.23%
Auckland 20.90% and Christchurch 24.25%. Whanganui's is 24.22.
But hey I'm a fascist probably because I disagree that these increases are justified. I mean it trips so nicely off the tongue and, for those who know history, it can almost be a synonym for Nazi can't it? I mean Fascists and Nazis weren't the Italians and the Germans pals together?
So keep the labels 'fascist' and 'actual fascist' and please relegate them to the Drawer of 'insults I'll never use'.
Rather than a meaningless insult, think about these fellow “people who have political views and/or opinions that I disagree with just at the moment”. (from Terry but amended by me)
Perhaps think also how best am I going to put a different view forward, because especially and actually they are on TS with me. It is not as if one of us has just been parachuted in from a hardest of right wing Republican branch in the US.
We are better than this aren't we? We don't just go round calling people fascists because we disagree with them do we?
No. I call people fascist when they are being fascist!
Which is not, for having different opinions about rate increases!
So are you able to give an example?
It just seems like an insult to call someone names when I like to keep the dialogue going. I'd just bow out or float away if someone started to call me a fascist. I'd think of them as someone unable to persuade me by the strength of their arguments.
And here in Wgtn most places you go at the moment you can find someone to argue with or agree with on rates/rates increases.
It is a hot-tish topic at the moment.
the overuse of the term fascist as a general pejorative, or in a Rik from the Young Ones kind of way, is tedious, and a political problem because it renders the term useless. But it's not that hard to separate that out from actual fascists in NZ. It's a political necessity to not take accusations of being fascist personally and instead address them politically. It's incredibly important not to deny that fascists are active in NZ, because history tells us that stopping fascism early is the way to stop fascism. By the time they're dismantling democracy it's can be too late (eg in the US).
I gave some examples here,
https://thestandard.org.nz/i-did-my-own-research/#comment-2039003
If you want the connection to the Freedom movements in NZ, Arps was stopped at Picton from attending the parliament occupation after he threatened death. There were people at the protest wanting to hang MPs. Action Zealandia were there. The livestreams were funded from pro-authoritarian groups off shore.
All of that bar the last one are very easy to read about and substantiate. The latter would probably require going back and reading investigative journalism from the time of the protests.
All of that feeds into the current alt health communities. It's dangerous and the left cannot afford to be complacent about this.
@ kjt .
Heh ..!
Jeezus. Seems you really have issues with rates. Or is it just Tory ?
The mayor, council and rates are inextricably linked here in Welly.
Rates and the hopeless council, headed by Tory Whanau that has subjected us to a 12% rates increase this year and 47% cumulative over three years.
Yet we have city that looks worn and tired as if the whole of the CBD needs steam cleaning. They want to tear things down like the City to Sea bridge, the council is sniffing around 'querying' if the Michael Fowler Centre needs demolishing, 20 or so historic places taken off the city register, housing stagnating…Well Wellington's always been a city in stasis so we don't get the big new subdivisions but there are pockets that WCC could encourage owners to have small developments.
I voted for TW and if there is a more disappointed person at her leadership I have yet to meet them. She has been awful.
Again if topic for the post, but.
Haven't been following the details in Wellington.
However. What evidence to justify the statement. "She has been awful". Apart from the reckons of talking back radio.
How much of the rate rises are due to previous councillors "kicking the can down the road"? How does Wellington rates compare with elsewhere? What effect did Tory Whanau have personally, considering she is only one vote on the council? It is not a one person dictatorship. Why is Tory subject to so much vitriol, when demonstrably incompetent white male businessmen in councils have been given a free pass forever?
This does show what I'm getting at, with the need for addressing all the questions when researching. Not just looking at the ones that support your initial hypothesis.
I get where you are coming from KJT. As I said I voted for her as an Independent.
She later came out as representing The Greens. Had I known this I would not have voted for her as I do not believe in politics in local government
I don't listen to talkback radio so not sure what it is saying.
She is head of a council that is doing these things….it is a shorthand to say 'Mayor', sorry when I should have said 'Mayor and Councillors'.
I'm not concerned if she is black, blue or purple or animal, vegetable or mineral.
The Mayor and Councillors have voted in huge rate increases, some of the highest in NZ and around a whopping 47% over the last three years. My super has gone up no more than about 4-6%, if that in that time. People's wages are held down, job losses because of Govt crackdowns ….
As I said the city is looking tired and grubby. The areas that were unsafe over the last 20-50, even 3 years ago are still unsafe.
It is hard to think that high rates, dirty city, stagnant growth is a fair price to pay for say unused/underused cycle lanes, when people cannot get to attractions such as the Botanical Gardens, or elderly women safely to their homes in my suburb. (they have been cut-off from access to their homes. Some have to walk blocks).
While there is some resident parking, but not enough to cater for all the households that lost parks & this costs $400 pa. There are stretches of blocks where taxis and ubers won't pull over as the roads are narrowed and they cannot pull to the left without running the risk of being rear-ended. Bus stops have been moved further apart. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
As well as un/underused cycle ways we have two cycle racks that cost around $500,000 each. These at last report were underused. We have a light up, light show set of 6 public toilets that cost around $2.3m.
While all this is going on we have an unspecified, therefore uncosted mess, still to fix that is our water supply.
We have payments for worthy things such as Neighbours days & picnics and such, free cycle workshops, transgender activities. Got nothing against these but they should not be at the expense of rate payers and we are not a rich place at the moment. They are not part of a city that is trying to live within its means.
I am sure that many of these activities would take place without WCC paying for them. Indeed when WCC did indicate later that it would not be paying the whole cost of the cycle workshops, the cyclists quickly asked participants to pay for the workshops themselves.
With the initiatives came calls for public submissions. Many of us realised after we had spent lots of time writing reasoned submissions that WCC had no intention of analysing or learning from the feedback.
Learning from the feedback and possibly doing things differently was not part of the WCC process. This cynicism at seeking opinions and then doing it anyway is ennervating. It certainly evokes cynicism about the Mayor and Councillors.
The Mayor had a back story. Of course the way the world should work is that anybody with a back story should be able to rise above it….Looking back I think she was genuinely promoted beyond her competence, too young, needed some councillor experience under her belt. The back story and addictions, looking back again, were too recent for many people to accept that she was or would be addiction-free.
Wellington has a history of having suberb female mayors Fran Wilde, Kerry Prendergast to name a couple. We have had a range of excellent female councillors as well with a 50:50 male female split on council. So what else is different with this Mayor and Council?
She is/was backing ideas that many Wellingtonians perhaps belatedly, have realised that they are not so keen on…..
This was exacerbated by the perception of excess within WCC. (WCC is reputed to have more comms officers than in the DPMC – that has a nation-wide brief)
This perception, when many citizens are doing it really hard via OTT rates expectations, is hard to take. Other Councils in NZ have been more prudent, even including the 'awful' Wayne Brown in Auckland. Whanganui raised their's by 2.2% so it can be done.
It is hard not to think that the Mayor and Councillors are part/the cause of this mess and the boss, as all bosses should do, has the ultimate responsibility. So even had a male been doing this, we would have been concerned.
Male Mayors not listening are just the same as female Mayors not listening.
So if anyone comes along that is boring but competent, male or female, to stand for Mayor then I'll look at them. I'll certainly be careful not to be taken in again by charisma or wishing well/giving a chance to a specific demographic. I'll certainly be doing my research!
I recall a youngish woman being interviewed by TV1 on the 6pm news shortly after the Covid vaccines became available. She confidently announced she had "done the research" and went on to claim the vaccines were dangerous and would cause many deaths etc… She had read a load of bullshit from anti-vaxxers both in NZ and elsewhere. There was not, to my recollection, any attempt to balance her claims with an immediate response from an actual expert in the field.
That was my biggest beef with the media during that pandemic. They gave these people a platform to spew their bullshit at a crucial moment, and we know it lead to many untimely deaths due to some people refusing to be vaccinated.
Good post KJT.
Part of the scepticism around science is where it meets capitalism and therefore marketing.
8 out of 10 doctors recommend (insert brand here) cigarettes.
Monsanto/Bayer can tell the most wonderful stories about Glyphosate all verified by science. Science they paid for.
Purdue had a non addictive opioid (miracle!) that fueled the OUD, aided by the FDA.
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-fda-failures-contributed-opioid-crisis/2020-08
If. The result is bought and paid for propaganda. It is NOT science!
I understand some of the cynicism about drug and chemical companies.
But not the unthinking faith, at the same time, around "health" foods and the "wellness" industry, that resist all regulation and requests for proof of safety and effectiveness, while making trillions.
Note:It was verifiable observation and scientific research that identified the issues with glysophate, aerosols, thalidomide and many other products.
true, that is a result of commerce and greed. The problems with peer review are on the scientific community though. What this tells me is that all human institutions are susceptible to mistakes, poor functioning, and even corruption, and we should be attentive to that always. I think science has some of its problems because it was in an ivory tower for so long.
It's also why in the public mind, many people now don't trust science like they used to. That trust has to be rebuilt.
I consider that the main reason why we have the current distrust of science is, bad actors for their own reasons, usually to do with money and power, of course, have deliberately mis represented and belittled science and scientists.
That is not something scientists can address on their own.
Remember what happened to Souxsie Wiles?
Don't even get me started on journals and science publishing. That the public cannot access much research papers themselves, as they are behind pay walls, makes non-scientists even more dependant on, often inaccurate, interpretations from "Jonalists". (The mis spelling is deliberate) We do not have many, if any, actual science Journalists.
I certainly do.I have previously linked the following but in case…? (also I relate on many levels to it)
I relate to your thinking and writing KJT. Keep doing both….
Re Science Journalists….I suppose it depends where you look? I personally have found more than a few(also in NZ too) when trying to reason with Climate Deniers (as I found…mostly a waste of time)
Anyway, some names stand out more than others (for me anyway) Eloise Gibson RNZ (many well researched Environment articles)
Here's a list with names you may or not recognise. I have read most of them and their work. A lot of good, well researched stuff. Hope useful..
Thanks.
Yes. Familiar with many of them.
Unfortunately too often buried in the storm of crap.
Allgood KJT. I, (as maybe you also?) am a member of more than a few groups (Enviro and otherwise).
I could list..but hey, I have previously on The Standard. And well…
Common theme : why isnt NZ a good place to live…and how can we make it better.
We do alright (into practice as it were : )..as Im sure you too.
Keep up what you do. Its a hard road an all..but the alternative? Fuck that.
Unfortunately, we have a long history of being required to believe things without evidence. This requirement was backed up by powerful forces – including the State – for millennia. Penalties for not believing the required "truths" were extremely severe including torture and agonising death.
Parts of the world still have those State based requirements for beliefs – and the penalties for apostasy that go with it.
Many people suffered horribly to achieve a cleavage between the requirement for unsubstantiated belief and the power of the State. Powerful forces reliant on such beliefs are still trying to claw back their dominance at every possible opportunity.
Yes, state and religious abuse, since time immemorial. In more recent times, traditional religions have perhaps taken a back seat to the worship of wealth and being 'sorted', as promoted by our CoC govt and those who see profiting from the provision of (basic / essential) human rights, such as food and shelter, as their ultimate 'right'.
Monetising access to the essentials of life is now a preferred method of control, ensuring "the relentless upwards redistribution of wealth" on overshoot spaceship Earth.
Much requires no research at all.
Just a little history and logic …
The Right is always right
The Left cannot be right
Therefore the Left must be wrong!
What would we know about history?
Without the efforts of historians.
Advocates of "common sense" often lack sense.
Surely "common sense" tells us that we need both wings to fly in a straight line.
With only one wing we either circle to the left or the right endlessly … or cannot fly at all.
May have to research that!
Centuries of scientific observation, show that if you shoot one wing off a bird, it cannot fly.
Presently we have a Government that thinks you can shoot the bird, and it will still fly!
“Common sense”?
No need to research that, a counter-example is mentioned in KJT’s other Post.
Your ‘common sense’ is flawed, as it almost always is once you start to dig deeper and critically challenge (aka test) it. It fails particularly when applied to specific contexts where & when it’s no longer common sense.
That said, it’s great fodder for bumper-sticker slogans and populist headlines.
Excellent topic for a Post, but unfortunately, it got derailed and misunderstood by (too) many, IMO.
Too many people conflate a bias confirmation approach and genuine robust hypothesis testing. In the former, they start with an opinion (conclusion) or personal belief, then they search selectively (i.e., look up or Google – the verb) and interpret information in support of it, and they downplay, ignore and/or reject data/information that is inconsistent with it. In the latter, they start with a neutral testable statement about reality, then they search information that might challenge it (aka falsify leading to rejecting the hypothesis), and during the process they learn something new irrespective of whether the initial hypothesis is accepted or rejected.
Framing the question/problem/’hypothesis’ in a favourable way that leads to a preferred answer/solution/’conclusion’ is antithesis to (scientific) research.
Really good points Incognito.
I think so much of what currently passes as research is based on a 'charming hypothesis looks for a home' approach.
I think the information that has gone before which is sometimes explained and sometimes not, is itself truncated but is often worth digging into.
So we have an hypothesis that says a Queen died of deliberate(ie homicidal) poisoning, explore.
Before that though we need to be able to say that a Queen's death is suspicious. How do we do this? What is the proof needed?
We may find the Queen's death was due to lead poisoning
and/but
she had a habit of licking the peeling paint in her cell.
So what I am saying is that some hypotheses are coming too far down the process. They may be built on assumptions that may be worthy-in -themselves starting points.
So then deliberate death becomes less likely or if blame can be assigned it is of the negligence kind, somebody was careless to put her in a cell with peeling lead paint knowing her predilection.