Among Friends

[wifey2qt]

@Foxxee  - Good luck and don't forget to put on your tin foil hat 

[bikerbabe]

If you think researchers are lying just because a more recent study discovers new information, then you really don’t understand scientific research. A study might be poorly done or it’s as simple as new scientific discovery. Knowledge evolves, and that includes understanding emergent infectious diseases. Understanding of pathogens like smallpox, for example, didn’t happen overnight or even in a span of several years.

I’d be very careful about YouTube as a reliable source.

[Foxxee]

@bikerbabe wrote:

If you think researchers are lying just because a more recent study discovers new information, then you really don’t understand scientific research. A study might be poorly done or it’s as simple as new scientific discovery. Knowledge evolves, and that includes understanding emergent infectious diseases. Understanding of pathogens like smallpox, for example, didn’t happen overnight or even in a span of several years.

I’d be very careful about YouTube as a reliable source.

---

@bikerbabe   

We will have to agree to disagree.

As far as I can see, early research on smallpox was not accurate,therefore not fact. They could not be replicated. The original result did not meet the test of time. They were not valid at that time.  

[bikerbabe]

@Foxxee

My point, was that knowledge changes over time and with more study. Yes, some studies are poorly designed.

You said “not all sources tell the truth.” I interpreted your statement that researchers deliberately lie, not that further research shows their hypothesis was invalid. Maybe I misunderstood your meaning.

I cited smallpox as an example that understanding evolves over time. That’s the way scientific research works. We don’t always have all the answers at the outset. Sometimes we don’t even ask the right questions. 🤣

Are there some shady researchers out there? Yes. Rarely do they get published in a major peer-reviewed journal. But new information comes to light all the time. It’s expected.

There is some interesting information on YouTube, but there are also a lot of self proclaimed experts who have no idea what they are talking about or are pushing an agenda disguised as fact.

[Foxxee]

---

@wifey2qt wrote:

@Foxxee  - LOL really? Research is only as good as your source ..........very easy to go down a rabbit hole when "researching". 

---

@wifey2qt 

True, the reason it is often inaccurate; however, I don't think we are on the same page as far as interpreting the meaning of the statement.  

[Foxxee]

@bikerbabe wrote:

@Foxxee

My point, was that knowledge changes over time and with more study. Yes, some studies are poorly designed.

You said “not all sources tell the truth.” I interpreted your statement that researchers deliberately lie, not that further research shows their hypothesis was invalid. Maybe I misunderstood your meaning.

I cited smallpox as an example that understanding evolves over time. That’s the way scientific research works. We don’t always have all the answers at the outset. Sometimes we don’t even ask the right questions. 🤣

Are there some shady researchers out there? Yes. Rarely do they get published in a major peer-reviewed journal. But new information comes to light all the time. It’s expected.

There is some interesting information on YouTube, but there are also a lot of self proclaimed experts who have no idea what they are talking about or are pushing an agenda disguised as fact.

@bikerbabe 

Yes, you are correct, but the thought of evolving knowledge doesn't make it factual until more research proves it doesn't need more research and often that is years later.  Time tells.  

So, where we differ is I do not consider most current research accurate including scientific.  I usually say, "We will see." You said it.  More information may be discovered later that proves previous research was inaccurate.  

Should we call research factual when it is based on what is only known at the time.  Facts are the truth and if there is the possibility future findings change the initial results, that isn't fact.  Always, researchers should say, this is what we know, now.  Good ones do.

The definition of research also means "look for."  That's the research I usually refer to and was talking about lying, etc, in a previous comment, when I say, "Do your research."  No one expects Joe and Sally Public to do sophisticated research. 

Learning the truth about subjects we don't know about.  Educating ourselves, so we can intelligently converse with others who know much more than we do.  

The problem with "looking for" is often sources don't tell the truth making it very difficult finding the truth...keeping in mind research involves accuracy and truth. 

[StillStelladorable]

When email and text messages between "news" hosts reveal their own disgust and horror at the lying liars who lie, yet these "news" hosts continue to spread the lying liars' lies, thats a source needing to be crossed off the list as legitimate.

They prove they will knowingly and intentionally lie to their viewers in order to keep ratings.

[paixmcdao]

---

@StillStelladorable wrote:

When email and text messages between "news" hosts reveal their own disgust and horror at the lying liars who lie, yet these "news" hosts continue to spread the lying liars' lies, thats a source needing to be crossed off the list as legitimate.

They prove they will knowingly and intentionally lie to their viewers in order to keep ratings.

---

It's all about the $$$$.