Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion

India-Forums

   

Research and ideology (Page 2)

lighthouse IF-Dazzler
lighthouse
lighthouse

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 2842

Posted: 22 August 2007 at 4:30pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by sareg

the question is

The research started with an ideology in mind(and most of them are, and absolutely no problem with that), however if the findings are tampered from an ideology standpoing, do those findings have the same value?

For example

There is a research done on say global warming, and is funded by an organization say a Coal mining firm

now if all they states is evidence refuting the existance of Global Warming, how much faith will you as a reader have in those findings

The researchers might have found both positives and negatives in the research, but when it came down to publication, all it states is the negatives, and that is all you see, will you beleive it?

 It depends on how the research satisfies ones own opinion/belief or pre-conceived notion on a certain issue. Most people hear/see what they want to hear/see and jump at copy/paste without establishing credibility of the report or author. To be truly objective one needs to look at the opposing research which will have different facts and POVs.

lighthouse IF-Dazzler
lighthouse
lighthouse

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 2842

Posted: 22 August 2007 at 9:16pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by sareg

Fellow DM'ers

This is not a blame topic, not pointing fingers, just something going through my mind of a while, We all have done this, just curious to get everyone's thoughts on this

We often see in a debate, someone cites a research article, or a published material and that opinion is often taken as a holy grail, I am thinking how much of a holy Grail is that research

Suppose in a thread of discussing usage's of Ethanol, suppose a research is presented that state's how it is harmful, and the research is conducted by someone who was funded by say Exxon, how much of a credence do we give to that research?

Or say in a discussion about Euthanisa, a research by National Review Online is used(NRO is a semi-mouthpeice of right wing within the Republican party, and you know if a research is done by NRO, it has to be an ideology driven research). How much credence do you give to that research

Or say you have an article that is authored by Prakash Karat identifying the faults with a American policy, how much credence do you give it

Topic of debate here is

What comes first? Research or the ideology? Everyone has opinions but every one cannot be a researcher so in most cases it is ideology that comes first.

Does research form the basis of the findings of the article ?

or 

Is the research done to prove the ideology and anything contrary to the ideology is ignored? Very often that is the case.

how do you sift thru this to find what is the neutral research article? Fortunately there is so much out there that one must look at both for and against in research articles and makeup their own mind.

Do you while researching for a debate/discussion have this at the back of your mind, that the research you are citing might be biased? oh yes.. but the bigger problem in debate/discussion is someone quoting the other person out of context or leaving things out which are contradictory to their views.

Again, this is not meant as a dig at any fellow DM'er, Almost everyone of us have cited some article, so if it was a dig, It would be at myself too

IdeaQueen IF-Dazzler
IdeaQueen
IdeaQueen

Joined: 23 August 2006
Posts: 3152

Posted: 03 September 2007 at 8:42pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by lighthouse

Originally posted by sareg

the question is

The research started with an ideology in mind(and most of them are, and absolutely no problem with that), however if the findings are tampered from an ideology standpoing, do those findings have the same value?

For example

There is a research done on say global warming, and is funded by an organization say a Coal mining firm

now if all they states is evidence refuting the existance of Global Warming, how much faith will you as a reader have in those findings

The researchers might have found both positives and negatives in the research, but when it came down to publication, all it states is the negatives, and that is all you see, will you beleive it?

 It depends on how the research satisfies ones own opinion/belief or pre-conceived notion on a certain issue. Most people hear/see what they want to hear/see and jump at copy/paste without establishing credibility of the report or author. To be truly objective one needs to look at the opposing research which will have different facts and POVs.


Is it soConfusedOuch..why the hell..do somany people have bad opinion of researching and researcher..may be they lack that skillsWinkLOL
sourav1 Senior Member
sourav1
sourav1

Joined: 03 July 2007
Posts: 277

Posted: 04 September 2007 at 8:56am | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by sourav1

Even if the research is clearly seen as funded by vested interests, one needs to being out arguments for and against the research itself. Pardon me but statements like "Funded by vested interests" is a news item cliche. Research manytimes needs good money and if a corporation sees benefit, it will clearly fund it. The accusation that such funding has influenced the study will still need to be proved by citing gross errors in the study itself.

A research being funded by some organisation is not bad as such neither does it mean that there is something wrong with the study. But here we're talking about the research findings that we get to see on the internet and how much of it is believable. Most of the research findings that we see here don't give out the name of the market research agency that undertook the research, so how do we know how reliable the source is. Moreover, since you're talking about pointing out gross errors in those studies, tell me how do we do that without vital informations all of which are never given out, e.g., primary and secondary endpoints, study design (sample size, sampling method, location, duration, demographics). Obviously if they don't give out these informations I don't see any reason to treat them as authentic.



Sorry for the late reply. I seem to have missed this.

The research will gain relevance if it is quoted somewhere, where it can be critiqued. Then such lack of information will be brought out. If anybody does not want to undermine one's credibility, then that person should not quote such "research" in the first place.

sourav1 Senior Member
sourav1
sourav1

Joined: 03 July 2007
Posts: 277

Posted: 04 September 2007 at 9:20am | IP Logged
Originally posted by sareg

Originally posted by sourav1

Even if the research is clearly seen as funded by vested interests, one needs to being out arguments for and against the research itself. Pardon me but statements like "Funded by vested interests" is a news item cliche. Research manytimes needs good money and if a corporation sees benefit, it will clearly fund it. The accusation that such funding has influenced the study will still need to be proved by citing gross errors in the study itself.

I am not saying let us invalidate the findings of a research,

the question is

The research started with an ideology in mind(and most of them are, and absolutely no problem with that), however if the findings are tampered from an ideology standpoing, do those findings have the same value?

For example

There is a research done on say global warming, and is funded by an organization say a Coal mining firm

now if all they states is evidence refuting the existance of Global Warming, how much faith will you as a reader have in those findings

The researchers might have found both positives and negatives in the research, but when it came down to publication, all it states is the negatives, and that is all you see, will you beleive it?



There is concept in science called "Falsifiability", which means how much of a handle does a theory give for refuting itself. The more falsifiable it is, the more scientific it is. Things like Prakash Karat's research into how much MMS is a stooge of Bush is one end of falsifiability where he might not point to any data that might be verified. The other end of spectrum could be physics - like classical mechanics which can be verified with little effort. More specifically since physics usually has a mathematical modelling of its laws, any one observation which does not satisfy the mathematical modelling is enough to refute the law - hence physics is highly falsifiable and that is why this field is very scientific. Classical mechanics were proved not to be universal with observations on accelerated particles and cosmic events. However it would be difficult to prove Karat wrong if he does not give any information to verify in the first place.
mermaid_QT IF-Sizzlerz
mermaid_QT
mermaid_QT

Joined: 25 September 2005
Posts: 11613

Posted: 04 September 2007 at 10:12am | IP Logged
Nice points there sourav.

Just few related points.

1. market research and research aren't one and the same in any angle, although unfortunately placed in the same category.

2. biomedical research is hypothesis-driven and ACCEPTED only after the authors provide substantial evidence in biological systems (barring unfortunate political & profit-driven cheap tactics in big pharma.. & they have their bad days when drugs get recalled   Wink )
This is why PEER-REVIEW of the work by ESTEEMED scientific journals is essential. It may not be for common knowledge for a person outside of research to know what journals are high impact and reliable. But within the community, we are free to set our standards high and publish in high impact and reliable journals.
I am sure all have heard a lot about mal-practice and falsification of data. It does get caught during peer review and when not, we have several instances of falsified papaers getting re-called. A lot also rides on reputation and such paper recalling individuals get tagged in community. Moreover, since others will use the information I provide in my reserach, if I falsify a cellular system and it fails to provide similar results in other labs, scientists from those labs will reach me for trouble-shooting and the truth will at some point come out. It is a fail-proof system especially once you reach top notch research institutes and publish in high-profile journals :)

3. As far as market research goes, which is not discovery but is just a survey IMO, I can see several loop holes one could use and make the system custom-made to attain certain profit-goals. Someone can correct me if I am wrong here. I would like to know if there are any standardized journals / high impact reliable journals where market research is published.   


Edited by mermaid_QT - 04 September 2007 at 10:15am
qwertyesque IF-Rockerz
qwertyesque
qwertyesque

Joined: 03 December 2006
Posts: 5953

Posted: 04 September 2007 at 5:48pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by sourav1

Originally posted by sareg

Originally posted by sourav1

Even if the research is clearly seen as funded by vested interests, one needs to being out arguments for and against the research itself. Pardon me but statements like "Funded by vested interests" is a news item cliche. Research manytimes needs good money and if a corporation sees benefit, it will clearly fund it. The accusation that such funding has influenced the study will still need to be proved by citing gross errors in the study itself.

I am not saying let us invalidate the findings of a research,

the question is

The research started with an ideology in mind(and most of them are, and absolutely no problem with that), however if the findings are tampered from an ideology standpoing, do those findings have the same value?

For example

There is a research done on say global warming, and is funded by an organization say a Coal mining firm

now if all they states is evidence refuting the existance of Global Warming, how much faith will you as a reader have in those findings

The researchers might have found both positives and negatives in the research, but when it came down to publication, all it states is the negatives, and that is all you see, will you beleive it?



There is concept in science called "Falsifiability", which means how much of a handle does a theory give for refuting itself. The more falsifiable it is, the more scientific it is. Things like Prakash Karat's research into how much MMS is a stooge of Bush is one end of falsifiability where he might not point to any data that might be verified. The other end of spectrum could be physics - like classical mechanics which can be verified with little effort. More specifically since physics usually has a mathematical modelling of its laws, any one observation which does not satisfy the mathematical modelling is enough to refute the law - hence physics is highly falsifiable and that is why this field is very scientific. Classical mechanics were proved not to be universal with observations on accelerated particles and cosmic events. However it would be difficult to prove Karat wrong if he does not give any information to verify in the first place.

This only applies to observational Science not to quantum mechanics, and prognostic research of diseases where the measure of falsibility is hardly a criteria compared to validation itself. This is true if many theoritical models... Physics derives from observation and then weaves a theory around it... is not itself driven by theory.. so its slightly different...

But what you say in a way is true.The bare minimal the axioms/assumptions on which the theory is based the better...

raj5000 Moderator
raj5000
raj5000

Joined: 01 January 2006
Posts: 11737

Posted: 19 February 2009 at 9:35pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by raksha.l



I am amazed the way some people make every imp decisions of their lives depending on the input/feedback, they get from the search engines...They somehow forget that Internet is like the walls of the public bathrooms, anybody can write anything...One needs to use his/her discretion before making it their quide...Agreed there are some genuine sites which offer near accurate information, but other than that, most of the sites/blogs are unauthorized and hence should be taken with a pinch of salt..


 
Well Said!
 
ps - checking out some good old oldies and this one is interesting read... check out old views here...WinkLOL
 

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Author Replies Views Last Post
Basic research paves way for environment ??

Author: Mindbender   Replies: 0   Views: 299

Mindbender 0 299 19 February 2009 at 9:14pm by Mindbender
Research says, K serials good for women

2 3 4 5 6

Author: sourav1   Replies: 45   Views: 3110

sourav1 45 3110 26 August 2007 at 12:31pm by Lord-Mangeshwar
Anarchism- a political ideology.......

Author: MNMS   Replies: 1   Views: 503

MNMS 1 503 19 June 2007 at 9:31am by IdeaQueen
Research

Author: kusum-lata   Replies: 1   Views: 307

kusum-lata 1 307 25 February 2007 at 4:43am by IdeaQueen
a mini research on dreams{clarrification}

Author: Mrs.Fr..   Replies: 3   Views: 594

Mrs.Fr.. 3 594 22 September 2006 at 5:27am by Mrs.Fr..

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index