A Primer on Actually Doing Your Own Research

[Somerville]

I know that many participants on this forum will immediately reject the linked piece simply because they know the author is an unreliable nutjob. However, I do think one should read the whole piece before throwing it in the internet trash. Richard Carrier in this article is not trying to sell a specific view, he is explaining how a person should check a statement they might disagree with or agree with.

A Primer on Actually Doing Your Own Research​

The idiom “Doing Your Own Research” has become a joke largely because the phrase usually comes from people who are shockingly bad at that, but who want to claim the prestige and authority of having actually done it. Which is pretty much all cranks, and everyone lost in some delusion or other, conditions which today infect millions of people.
[. . .]
In other words, “Doing Your Own Research” usually means just gullibly believing whatever you read on the internet; so if you endeavor to read a lot of things on the internet, what you will end up believing is mostly going to be false (because so much of what’s on the internet is false).

The process basically goes like this: you’re told something (in a mere matter-of-fact way, and maybe by an authority you have already been primed to dislike or distrust); you then find lots of people claiming that’s false (and employing a lot of rhetorical devices of persuasion and manipulation that you have no defenses against); and you don’t find equivalently-artful rebuttals (because those take work to locate, and are already coming from authorities you were primed to distrust or dislike, while most rebuttals you encounter will not be wholly competent); so you think the argument ends there, and side with the contrarians. This is irrational and uncritical. But it’s what most people do.

Mr Carrier is not discussing his Jesus Myth stories in this linked piece. I think he is actually providing examples as to how one is supposed to verify or debunk controversial matters.

Real “Doing Your Own Research” means being reasonably critical, looking for the best case on both sides of an issue, and comparing their merits by valid metrics—which means, not your emotions or biases or assumptions, but by their actual cited evidence and actually articulated logic.

 

[Loulit01]

 

[dmpi]

Many topics are controversial and there is no right or wrong answer and they're basically un-testable. The best you can do is understand both sides of the debate and pick a side that matches your life experiences and personal philosophy. For example: I have had privilege of being on at least 10 juror trails. I have heard expert witnesses go at it dozen of times often using the dreaded 'simulation'. I realize that degrees and credentials mean little when you're paid to give one side of the story and simulations can easily be cooked to give any answer you want. This experience shapes my belief system and I don't give 'experts' the same credibility that many here do.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Many topics are controversial and there is no right or wrong answer

Actual "facts" are not fluid. They are information that can be verified through evidence or observation.
Thus, there are definitely right and wrong answers.

 

[Gozaburo]

Actual "facts" are not fluid. They are information that can be verified through evidence or observation.
Thus, there are definitely right and wrong answers.

Eh, not really. Pretty much all post-enlightenment ideologies have some form of epistemic relativism baked into the cake. Ideology isn't a testable theory like gravity is and - funny enough - many people would even contest the ability to test gravity on an objective basis!

 

[anatta]

you then find lots of people claiming that’s false (and employing a lot of rhetorical devices of persuasion and manipulation that you have no defenses against); and you don’t find equivalently-artful rebuttals (because those take work to locate, and are already coming from authorities you were primed to distrust or dislike, while most rebuttals you encounter will not be wholly competent);

I found this to be true about Obama/Hillary/Rice lies to overthrow Libya's Qadaffi. The western press took it as gospel that Qadaffi shelled his own people at Maydan ash-Shuhadā, also known as Martyrs' Square, Bengazi.

Very long story short the "no Fly Zone" (UN Resolution 1973) that turned into western driven overthrow and killing of Qadaffi was based on flimsy evidence -CNN had supposed cell phone footage..It was a civil war before the west got involved where Qadaffi and opposition
were both fighting in cities at times. NATO bombed Misrata - so much for "humanitarian war". Hillary led the charge to take out Qadafffi
^~~

all of the above is my notes/recollection from the 2011 Libya civil war. You find none of it in western sources at the time.
I was able to do it with a partner whom briefly posted here then . Even then it took us about 2 weeks to filter out the lies.

Point it research takes time depending how deep you go. I found snippets of info upon examination that stood up to scrutiny
But you can find anything if you do use skill and time to put it together

 

[Pyrite]

Use credible print sources.

Fact-check/cross-check.

 

[Michael Cole]

Many topics are controversial and there is no right or wrong answer and they're basically un-testable. The best you can do is understand both sides of the debate and pick a side that matches your life experiences and personal philosophy. For example: I have had privilege of being on at least 10 juror trails. I have heard expert witnesses go at it dozen of times often using the dreaded 'simulation'. I realize that degrees and credentials mean little when you're paid to give one side of the story and simulations can easily be cooked to give any answer you want. This experience shapes my belief system and I don't give 'experts' the same credibility that many here do.

It's an adversarial system with both sides allowed expert testimony. It boils down to which experts are believable.

 

[dmpi]

It's an adversarial system with both sides allowed expert testimony. It boils down to which experts are believable.

Sometime in trails there are no facts in dispute. But one expert can talk about A while the other expert talks about B. One if my trials was an anti-trust suit against the NHL. They had to value a hockey team that would have existed for not the anti-actions of the NHL. They get like two completely different answers using two different economic valuation models. They're both right, but it can depend on how you look at things.

 

[Michael Cole]

Sometime in trails there are no facts in dispute. But one expert can talk about A while the other expert talks about B. One if my trials was an anti-trust suit against the NHL. They had to value a hockey team that would have existed for not the anti-actions of the NHL. They get like two completely different answers using two different economic valuation models. They're both right, but it can depend on how you look at things.

Exactly. When the facts make sense from both sides, albeit in different ways, the experts who are believable usually earn jurors' trust.

 

[roberthughey]

Opinions aren't facts.

 

[lynnwinslow]

Many topics are controversial and there is no right or wrong answer and they're basically un-testable. The best you can do is understand both sides of the debate and pick a side that matches your life experiences and personal philosophy. For example: I have had privilege of being on at least 10 juror trails. I have heard expert witnesses go at it dozen of times often using the dreaded 'simulation'. I realize that degrees and credentials mean little when you're paid to give one side of the story and simulations can easily be cooked to give any answer you want. This experience shapes my belief system and I don't give 'experts' the same credibility that many here do.

You had jury duty ten times or more?

 

[Threegoofs]

 

[dmpi]

You had jury duty ten times or more?

You wouldn't believe how many times I been on jury section. I've get picked about 1/2 the time to serve on the juror. I'm must of served in over 10 trials, many of them were in federal court.

 

[follower7371]

Many topics are controversial and there is no right or wrong answer and they're basically un-testable. The best you can do is understand both sides of the debate and pick a side that matches your life experiences and personal philosophy. For example: I have had privilege of being on at least 10 juror trails. I have heard expert witnesses go at it dozen of times often using the dreaded 'simulation'. I realize that degrees and credentials mean little when you're paid to give one side of the story and simulations can easily be cooked to give any answer you want. This experience shapes my belief system and I don't give 'experts' the same credibility that many here do.

That's very true. I try to look for various news agencies to see what they have said (or not said) on a specific issue and I'm finding that the Independent News are much more reliable in actually describing & explaining the issue I'm interested in. And that's a good thing simply because they rely on subscribers to exist and if they're found to be wrong, (much like CNN or MSNBC are) then they'll lose those subscribers. So the effort is made to ensure they're reporting correctly or as correct as the information they have access to allows.