my-gender-is-sometimes:61below:quasi-normalcy:tikkunolamorgtfo:memehumor:The fact that you cannot fi
my-gender-is-sometimes:61below:quasi-normalcy:tikkunolamorgtfo:memehumor:The fact that you cannot find any journals to back up your viewpoint MAY suggest you need to reassess your viewpoint…Okay, but for real—I’m a librarian and I get shit like this all the fucking time and I have to be so polite about it, like “Well, actually, that theory has been largely been debunked and is not supported by the scientific community, so perhaps it might be easier in terms of fulfilling the parameters of the assignment if you were to take the opposite stance for your paper?” when really I just want to scream for twenty minutes like Jake Peralta with a guitar. Do…Do people not understand that the research is supposed to come before you formulate your opinion?Research! That! Invalidates! The! Original! Hypothesis! Is Valid! Too! That’s the point of science!It’s not ‘how can I cherry-pick my data to support my opinion’ It’s ‘Huh I wonder if this is a thing’ and the universe goes ‘Decidedly Not’ and then you can be like ‘Oh! Alright then! Let’s try a new line of inquiry!’ @61below , could you be a tiny bit less vague? I don’t know your stance on this one…Ok, so, if you’re doing a study that says ‘You’ll catch more flies with honey’ and you set out honey, water, and vinegar, you’ll find that you’ll get more flies with vinegar. That just means the original hypothesis is incorrect. And that’s ok! (So long as the conclusion is, ‘you’ll catch more flies with vinegar’ and not mumbo jumbo trying to dick around with high standard deviations, *glares at that one ‘study’ that made headlines about how it’s bad to sleep with your dog*(Edited bc tumblr ate half this post) The OP’s antivaxxer could have written a paper on their original thesis, but then they should have basically been all ‘I found nothing to back it up so in conclusion this isn’t supported’ Tldr: it’s ok for people to change their minds in the face of new information, even if it’s only ‘new’ to them. Then you see if that hypothesis still holds up upon repetition, and ::boom:: you’ve got science. OP’s antivaxxer could have written their paper with an antivax thesis, but then they would have to state that they could not find any works supporting that, and make her conclusion that her original thesis was incorrect. TLDR: it’s ok for people to change mind in the face of new evidence, even if it’s only ‘new’ to them. -- source link
#science!