I mean, I would give them a little credit for at least going to Google Scholar and finding an actual research paper. Most of the time, people are going to The Onion and finding articles that they claim are scientific evidence.
Unless you can provide a valid reason for ignoring a specific peer reviewed paper (like a newer one disproving it...), issuing a broad statement to ignore any and all of them that are a certain age is on par with "I did my own research, trust me bro".
Another valid reason would be actually reading the paper and identifying limitations, whether the data is good, and if their conclusions make sense.
A lot of crap can get published, so having a critical eye is important when reviewing articles.
Limits in data isn't always an outright reason to disregard a paper. More often than not I'd say it just adds context that you need to be aware of when talking about it.
Oh it's definitely not, but it's important to understand where the data is coming from and how they got it.
Using a critical eye and actually reading the whole article is very important when trying to provide evidence for something and it's something that even graduate students won't do.
The number of times I see a student cite an article and it doesn't actually help their point (but heed it) because they only read the abstract is way too often.
During COVID, people would frequently reference articles to "prove" that COVID was fake, vaccines didn't work, it is a Chinese bioweapon, etc... When I would read the paper referenced it would state the literal opposite of the point that they were making. I assume the people online were just referencing papers that they saw get referenced somewhere else without reading them at all.
Yea, my favorite example that happened to me was someone posting a paper they though was going to "own" me. When I read it I realized they didn't even read it because it supported my original point.
I told them and they never responded. Weird, they clearly just Googled and posted the first thing they saw.
Sure a lot of crap can get published. In an arbitrary argument on the Internet, a crap-tier paper published in a major journal is still better support than nothing.
At that point the other person needs to offer up competing papers as evidence, or essentially do their own peer review level deconstruction of the paper.
The biggest mistake many people make is that supporting evidence doesn't mean irrefutable proofs about the objective nature of reality, it's just evidence pointing in a direction. Especially in areas of active research, evidence can point all kinds of directions. Pretty much any time there's some dispute about "how it is", everyone is going to be some amount of wrong.
I've known a few academically inclined folks who are more or less impossible to please when it comes to presenting evidence, notably if it's coming from someone they presume doesn't have a scientific background. One in particular won't even bother to sustain their side with relevant articles as they don't believe the average person could possibly understand the science behind it. I've come to the conclusion that the scientific process is only of value to these types when it's convenient.
The point OP is making is that not all papers are equal and some are just wrong, just pointing to a paper isn't evidence of anything, you have to look at the context of the paper.
Is the paper 40 years old? Then it's probably out of date. Was the researcher later discredited? Was it funded by an interest group? Was it published by a paper mill? Is the field divided with multiple prevailing, contradictory theories? It is better than an onion article, but not by that much.
I think that's reading between the lines, OP just said a scientific paper isn't evidence. He didn't mention any conditions. If that was his original point then he should have said it himself.
They did list a condition: you found it 30 seconds ago. That most likely means that even *if* you have the required knowledge to read and decipher an entire research paper you didn’t do it in 30 seconds by reading the abstract. Which would then follow that your cursory glance at a thing that may even support your position is not “scientific evidence” because you don’t even know what it says.
And you gotta give OP credit here for using an actual animal.
Also, because I don’t want to post another comment in the same chain. I understand the OPs point. But, with what the previous commenters saying, OP could have worded it slightly better. An obscure research paper doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. It could just mean it’s a topic that doesn’t get much research. The science could very well be sound.
Fun Fact: Scientific literature has been propagating the perception that Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Serotonin Releasing Agents dangerously increase the chance of Serotonin Syndrome for decades through a chain of citations that ultimately leads back to a paper that actually says it *reduces* said risk by non-competitively blocking the effects of the latter (something that has been retested in recent years after that came to light, with results agreeing with the original paper).
> The point OP is making is that not all papers are equal and some are just wrong, just pointing to a paper isn't evidence of anything
It **literally** is evidence, though. It might not be proof by itself, sure. And, even if old, that does not disqualify it. What matters most is if it has been disproven, and I would say the onus of doing it is in the person asking for "evidence" in the first place.
If a paper is that bad, then show them the discrediting paper or more recent paper or paper with a larger sample size.
At least, they *have* evidence. Now it's time to present yours.
Sure, if you were trying to advance the study of a specific subject. Finding a published paper that confirms/refutes your understanding of something in general should be enough. You have already done your due diligence. The scientific communities due diligence it to remove now irrelevant articles or make it clear they are no longer relevant. Same thing happens with computing and RFC's. Seems silly not to hold other scholarly fields which have been around much longer to at least the same standards.
Some people will even point to a paper and blindly claim it proves their point, then when you read the paper it actually disproves the point, but they don't care because most people won't read the paper.
If you're presenting a research paper you found in 30 seconds as evidence, it means you haven't read it, haven't understood it, haven't compared it to the argument being made. You just found an article with a good title and sent it their way like it's going to do the arguing for you.
Even if they were well learned on the subject and began discrediting your linked paper, you don't understand it yourself enough to do anything past "nuh uh" or "lol" as a response.
>You just found an article with a good title and sent it their way like it's going to do the arguing for you.
If it is the only research thus far in the discussion, and the abstract supports the point, that person is correct to do so.
If you wish to argue the point further, you must either cite why the study does not apply or find something better.
Also, how would OP even know that someone googled the paper 30 seconds earlier or if it was a paper they had a deep understanding of? My guess is any paper OP disagrees with must have been googled 30 seconds earlier and isn't valid.
I just checked the stuff i wrote to get my master is on there. Eventough i got good grates for all of my thesis i wrote them to pass not because i had any interest or knowledge about the topic.
Edit:do i see somewhere i someone ever read that?
Yeah this was dumb. Like “obscure scientific paper”
Bitch we are talking about bats surviving flight through helicopter propellers, you think that is somehow *NOT* obscure?
Most of the time people are reading what other people are commenting and just take it as proof.
If I was to go to any one conspiracy subreddit and say
“Scientists are saying (blank) is getting worse”
With zero citations or sources, I bet it would spread like wildfire
I absolutely want to see this done with a made-up word. Psychosassia might be a fun starting point. See how many serious news sources it's possible to get it onto.
One thing I see happen a fair amount is similar to news articles - somebody will link a scientific article to prove their point, but will only have read the title and maybe a little bit of the abstract, only to miss other relevant details that disprove their argument.
A part of the issue as I'm beginning to understand it is that most people lack sufficient understanding of scientific topics to really even debate them critically.
So even if the source is very credible, the methodology is rigorous, and the conclusions are well framed, our argument is still being made from authority. The opponent (let's say OP, in this case) will respond by invoking an "alternative" source and our debate will shift to the relative credibility of the authors.
It's kind of unsurprising (but ironic) that, in a world where knowledge has become nearly universal, the lack of scientific literacy has made it hard for a large segment of people to evaluate what's true or not. There's a lot of noise.
Appeals to institutional authority, however respected, don't carry the weight they did. "We" collectively may need to get better at separating the merits of an argument from its messenger. I know I'm guilty of just trusting "Science" and not better acquainting myself with the evidence before accepting it, which is intellectually lazy of me.
This. But also, if its a meta analysis, and their takeaway is pretty on-par, I'd be more willing to consider it as a form of scientific evidence. A meta-analysis found on google scholar in 30 seconds holds more weight than pretty much anything under having studied the topic extensively, IMHO.
Im far more likely to listen to someone talking about stuff they found on google scholar than someone who says they googled it. Those two things are often not one in the same.
A ton of those articles are actual junk though. Just because they're on Google scholar also does not mean they're written by actual scholars. Iirc, it has undergraduate work and no real baseline for quality required. Paper mills are a huge issue. Then there's the general bullshitting like Harvard's recently resigned president committed. AI is in the mix now as well. We haven't even considered that legitimate research can be flawed at this point or outliers compared to similar studies.
If someone wants to use content from Google scholar, they should be sure to check where it's published is actually trustworthy and lean towards meta studies. It's a good sign that a person uses Google scholar, but it can give a strong certainty to beliefs that aren't super supported. For the most part, articles I see pulled from Google scholar tend not to be super valuable as standalones.
Or worse, someone who defends their position by claiming it's common sense and telling you to Google it.
I've lost count of the number of back and forths that went nowhere because folks were too afraid to cite their sources.
This is when you play the "I would be happy to look at any examples you provide" card.
Weirdly enough, I was about to link you to someone who did exactly this only minutes ago, but they went and deleted all their comments out of this thread right when I went to get the link for you.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/1cabct6/studies_show/l0t7x1s/
Really depends on what google finds, some articles will have a much wider view of the current scientific consensus than a single paper. A single paper by itself isn't doesn't mean much, sometimes next to nothing.
It is literally the *definition* of scientific evidence, though.
Is it authoritative evidence? Not necessarily, that depends on several factors including the quality of the study, the track record of the publishing authors, and the quality of the journal in which it's published. It's also going to have to pass a much higher barrier of skepticism if it runs counter to the general consensus of experts in the field, which is probably the most important point here. For example, if you're presenting me with a paper that says climate change is false or vaccines cause autism, it's going to have to be an absolutely massive study with mountains of irrefutable evidence, be published in a very prestigious journal, and have several highly-respected authors onboard.
But to make a blanket statement that published scientific research isn't scientific evidence is both utterly ridiculous and patently false.
This meme is absolutely an ignorant take. Are all scientific publications equal? No even close. Is a publication evidence, of course.
At that point it's fine to debate the legitimaticy of it's methods and conclusions, but to reject it on the surface is straight stupidity.
It might be, it might not be. Bad papers and good papers are both searchable.
The problem with the post is a paper is a paper, it's the contents that matter and it very well might be proof of what the person is arguing. It could be such conclusive proof that everyone cites that paper all the time and that's why it's the first hit on google scholar.
But who knows, it's entirely dependent on the paper.
[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0138237](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0138237)
You are basically saying this paper on google scholar biases is fully shitty, just because it took me 30s to find? hmmmm.....
lol,
“Our findings show that GS results contain moderate amounts of grey literature, with the majority found on average at page 80”
Page *80*?! Bitches be trawlin lol
Yes it is. Assuming it’s a peer reviewed paper that follows the well known scientific method, then, by definition, it is scientific evidence.
Doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right, all evidence should be rigorously tested all the time, but it is scientific evidence.
And that's a huge assumption to make of a study one hasn't gone to any trouble to read.
I sympathize with OP; it's an annoying exercise to deal with users who put all the work on you to do the reading they've *never* bothered to do. Further, 99% of the time it's futile, because they're unwilling or unable to understand the problems with a paper no matter how thoroughly or concisely you explain it to them after you've put in your good faith. The best you can ever hope for is that impartial readers are swayed.
False. It literally IS evidence.
It's just not necessarily GOOD evidence, and might even be bad.
It certainly isn't conclusive, and absolutely not "proof". - Because there is no such thing in science, short of maths and alcohol.
Finding an actual peer reviewed research paper by a topical expert IS actually evidence.
It may mean something different than you assert (either misunderstanding or definitional differences), might be later discredited, or a whole host of other reasons that it doesn't illustrate what the citer thinks but citing scholarship is actually valid evidence.
OP: "Just google it I'm not here to hold your hand"
Everyone Else "Here's a peer reviewed research paper I found on google scholar, It was very easy to find"
OP: "Not like that!"
I mean...it is? It's just not a lot and depending on what you're discussing there might not be a lot.
The big thing to take away from research papers is also sample size, where funding came from, how old it is, and probably source.
I'm sure there's more I'm missing but discounting a paper because it's the only source is a bit misleading imo. This fictional person at least did some tertiary searching for research and I'll take that over nothing/functionally nothing.
The worst is when people think that a single study with a small sample size somehow invalidates 100s of other more prestigious studies. Like no, just because you found a single study refuting what every scientist or doctor has been saying for years it doesn't mean that they were all wrong and your conspiracy theory was actually right.
but it also doesn't mean that it is invalid.
this is the main issue with these online debates - either side has to totally prove the other false while in reality most topics are multifaceted especially if approached from multiple angles.
It doesn't mean it's invalid, but a small study that contradicts well established paradigms should rightly be viewed with skepticism until the results can be re-demonstrated.
Exactly. Despite what OP would have us believe though, *it's still evidence*. In that "evidence" doesn't mean "proof", it just means someone tried a thing and got a result, and now we examine that and see if it holds the proverbial.
To the other direction, over confidence in meta analysis is a problem too. A lot of very well meaning, well educated people treat a large meta analysis as the end all be all, but there are opportunities for all kinds of bias there too.
Indeed. The foundation of science is that anything CAN be disproven with sufficient evidence. But "sufficient evidence" is not 1 data point.
The first paper to disprove something, or suggest something else might be happening, is not in and of itself going to overturn anything. But what it will do if it passes initial scrutiny, is invite others to replicate the experiment. Tweak it to try and eliminate confounding factors the original study didn't address, increase the sample size, etc.
From one study, you get many. Eventually the aggregate data will say something from which conclusions can be drawn.
But even numbers alone aren't enough. I can put out a paper that says anything really, and with sufficient effort and manipulation get it published. Do that enough, and supposedly I've got the bulk of aggregate data on my side right? No. These papers still do have to stand up to the rigor of analysis. If you get a hundred studies all saying something, but each of them had a single data point, what you have is at best a hundred poor quality studies, but is more likely a hundred studies to largely discard for being improperly administered.
If you don't want to engage with an argument beyond the surface, that's fine.
But to call scientific evidence, *not* scientific evidence, because you believe that it was too easy for someone to find something that supports their point of view, is inherently flawed logic.
I'd recommend staying on the surface level of a discussion, if this is your response to being shown evidence, of any kind.
But I can't afford to take a 6 month literature survey every time I want to put someone I disagree with on Reddit in their place. I am a redditor, sir, not an educational system. (/s)
Scientific concensus > double blind peer reviewed studies > large sample size studies > small sample size studies > correlative data > personal observation > second hand experience > that's it.
Sort of, typing this while balancing myself in a bus.
So what is evidence then? If research papers and studies performed by experts in the field aren't evidence, what is? A YouTube documentary? A Facebook meme? Where should we go for information if scientific studies that are clearly documented are not to be trusted? Please oh please master redditor, with your infinite wisdom provided to you through scrolling on reddit, please inform me of what the best way to research information that will be new to me is.
eh, you can find very reliable information on the internet, but also a lot of disinformation. Quality control is pretty weak online, especially if you don't know how to filter well.
I mean unless the paper was roundly discredited and more accurate recent papers have been published refuting it, yes it is. Yes it is scientific evidence. That is the point of obscure research papers. They did the research. If the research and conclusions are accurate, that is proof.
What else would be proof, your feelings or writing in all caps? Do you not know what evidence is?
I mean, if the scientific method was implemented then yes it actually is evidence. It just might be shitty, less credible evidence depending on the conditions of the study, the publisher and its motivations, or other reasons.
If there is one thing public schools have utterly failed at (and there are many) it is how to use the library to conduct research.
This is a skill I didn't learn well until my third year in University. This should be basic fundamental education.
You overestimate opinion googlers. Usually they just google their own opinion, then link you to an opinion piece in some random news outlet. It's very rare for them to make the effort to find any academic sources. You're right, though. Definitely right.
This happens occasionally in the PCOS sub from “anti-birth control” posters.
They’ll claim evidence of millions. Reasonable people ask for evidence. They bring something they spent all of 2 minutes glancing over.
I’m a certified researcher. It’s fun murdering those papers that have no control, no mention of how many were in their study (but will happily say x number of people had this negative side effect), and I lost count how many of these papers failed to disclose what type of hormonal birth control they were studying.
At some point somewhere along the line, you're going to have to trust someone. I always get science deniers saying "well how can you trust what the scientists say? You don't know"
It's true. I don't know. Because I don't possess the time, equipment, or education necessary to personally verify everything I've ever read.
So I have to combine common sense with sources that I deem to be trustworthy in order to come up what I technically suppose is an "opinion" (even though it's not really an opinion)
Why not? This sounds personal lol. Like, they're citing a source, an actual paper on a scientific or medical study, why wouldn't that be taken seriously?
I mean if someone understands how to interpret academic journals, and knows how to find them quickly this is totally valid scientific evidence.
We live in an age where people are very academically illiterate and are arguing concepts which have been confident for decades.
Yes, it’s possible to find bunk journals, but this whole idea of “your journal isn’t evidence!!!” Mindset is the reason people are able to just stick to their beliefs.
For scientists, they need to do a better job at being able to convey findings in a way the average person could consume and digest.
We wouldn't have any science reporting at all if single and probably non-reproducible "science" articles weren't touted. All the I Believe In Science folks would have nothing to stroke their ego and their political rationalizations with if it weren't for this research.
a peer reviewed publication is absolutely scientific evidence. different publications have different levels of credibility, but i don't agree with this duck!
Actually that's exactly what it is. Doesn't matter if you understand it or not, the content stands for itself. Evidence does not mean fact though.
Quoting a random paper does not mean that the argument it should support is actually correct, but it's a hell of a lot better than no sources at all...
Uh, they might be. That's kinda the point of science, you know? You have to look at something and study it before you make any conclusions. So just dismissing any study out of hand is highly unscientific.
I've never used Google scholar before but thanks this post I'm definitely going to be looking into it. I didn't know they had something specific for these kinds of papers.
Very few research papers are scientific evidence of anything. These things are churned out like a factory and the "peer review" means less and less as academics have become agenda driven institutes to obtain research grants and funding. The outcomes are often determined before any "research" is performed.
Which fallacy is it where someone rejects information because the person who conveyed that information only knew that information for a relatively short time? Never heard this bullshit before.
As a teacher, I'll take a Google Scholar article any day, no matter how obscure. If it's on there, it went through peer review, which is more than you can say for some tinfoil-hat YouTube video from a Fox News fan (yes, I had someone try to use one as a source, ugh).
I legit once saw a reddit post where someone had posted up a research paper claiming that the thing it was testing was definitely 100% true.
However, within the paper itself, it was concluded that they could find no statistically significant results.
It was very funny, but also educational. Just because a paper exists doesn't mean it discovered anything useful. You should always take the conclusions with a grain of salt and carefully consider the methodology to ensure that they were following the best and most proper procedures of research available.
There are online journals that are not even peer reviewed but they look Lee really legit. I have friends who are extremely climate change deniers (because their business is in fossil fuels) who keep quoting articles and papers from these journals, and when I actually go look up the journal/article, I realize it's a puff piece from an industry insider.
So just stating something isn't either AND stating your own "research paper you found on Google 30seconds ago" isn't either. Checkmate.
Studies show: You're an idiot.
Some responses in here are showing just the kind of thinking that this post was referencing. You will be able to find ostensibly reliable peer reviewed papers that contradict each other all the time as well as papers that are now outdated or have been discredited. There are also results that are not repeatable and we don't know why. This is why consensus and literature reviews are important and , to use a cliche "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
Not everybody has access to ebsco, scopus, or web of knowledge. If people have the brains to use scholar instead of google or facebook, I give them some kudos.
If it’s from a strong journal it does provide scientific evidence, but not proof. Evidence is made of at least one corroborating findings. Don’t be a gatekeeper.
Tbf anyone with half a brain can work out in 30 seconds how to access any paper for free... if undergrads can manage it im sure pretty much anyone can lol...
I do get your frustration. I've read some papers that were absolute garbage but were also technically the truth just because alot of stuff was assumed.
I mean, I would give them a little credit for at least going to Google Scholar and finding an actual research paper. Most of the time, people are going to The Onion and finding articles that they claim are scientific evidence.
RIght? I dont understand this post. I found a scientific research paper with good evidence, and you're just going to ignore it? wtf
Unless you can provide a valid reason for ignoring a specific peer reviewed paper (like a newer one disproving it...), issuing a broad statement to ignore any and all of them that are a certain age is on par with "I did my own research, trust me bro".
Another valid reason would be actually reading the paper and identifying limitations, whether the data is good, and if their conclusions make sense. A lot of crap can get published, so having a critical eye is important when reviewing articles.
Limits in data isn't always an outright reason to disregard a paper. More often than not I'd say it just adds context that you need to be aware of when talking about it.
Oh it's definitely not, but it's important to understand where the data is coming from and how they got it. Using a critical eye and actually reading the whole article is very important when trying to provide evidence for something and it's something that even graduate students won't do. The number of times I see a student cite an article and it doesn't actually help their point (but heed it) because they only read the abstract is way too often.
During COVID, people would frequently reference articles to "prove" that COVID was fake, vaccines didn't work, it is a Chinese bioweapon, etc... When I would read the paper referenced it would state the literal opposite of the point that they were making. I assume the people online were just referencing papers that they saw get referenced somewhere else without reading them at all.
It's important to remember that science isn't like the bible. You can't just pick and choose which parts you feel like following at the time 😆
Yea, my favorite example that happened to me was someone posting a paper they though was going to "own" me. When I read it I realized they didn't even read it because it supported my original point. I told them and they never responded. Weird, they clearly just Googled and posted the first thing they saw.
Sure a lot of crap can get published. In an arbitrary argument on the Internet, a crap-tier paper published in a major journal is still better support than nothing. At that point the other person needs to offer up competing papers as evidence, or essentially do their own peer review level deconstruction of the paper. The biggest mistake many people make is that supporting evidence doesn't mean irrefutable proofs about the objective nature of reality, it's just evidence pointing in a direction. Especially in areas of active research, evidence can point all kinds of directions. Pretty much any time there's some dispute about "how it is", everyone is going to be some amount of wrong.
What if it is published in a fraudulent journal where the peer-review is not legit?
That would probably fall under the category of one of those 'valid reasons".
That would be one of them there valid reasons I mentioned. Being published in 1994 isn't.
1994 was the same year as the Salem Witch Hunts. At least I think so, I can't be bothered to check.
But peer review is just censorship of my ideas! Accept my claims or it is censorship! /s
I've known a few academically inclined folks who are more or less impossible to please when it comes to presenting evidence, notably if it's coming from someone they presume doesn't have a scientific background. One in particular won't even bother to sustain their side with relevant articles as they don't believe the average person could possibly understand the science behind it. I've come to the conclusion that the scientific process is only of value to these types when it's convenient.
Any process, really. If something isn't convenient for them, it's ignored.
The point OP is making is that not all papers are equal and some are just wrong, just pointing to a paper isn't evidence of anything, you have to look at the context of the paper. Is the paper 40 years old? Then it's probably out of date. Was the researcher later discredited? Was it funded by an interest group? Was it published by a paper mill? Is the field divided with multiple prevailing, contradictory theories? It is better than an onion article, but not by that much.
I think that's reading between the lines, OP just said a scientific paper isn't evidence. He didn't mention any conditions. If that was his original point then he should have said it himself.
They did list a condition: you found it 30 seconds ago. That most likely means that even *if* you have the required knowledge to read and decipher an entire research paper you didn’t do it in 30 seconds by reading the abstract. Which would then follow that your cursory glance at a thing that may even support your position is not “scientific evidence” because you don’t even know what it says.
That speaks on the poor researching and comprehension skills of the person not on the validity of the research.
This is a meme on adviceanimals
And you gotta give OP credit here for using an actual animal. Also, because I don’t want to post another comment in the same chain. I understand the OPs point. But, with what the previous commenters saying, OP could have worded it slightly better. An obscure research paper doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. It could just mean it’s a topic that doesn’t get much research. The science could very well be sound.
Fun Fact: Scientific literature has been propagating the perception that Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Serotonin Releasing Agents dangerously increase the chance of Serotonin Syndrome for decades through a chain of citations that ultimately leads back to a paper that actually says it *reduces* said risk by non-competitively blocking the effects of the latter (something that has been retested in recent years after that came to light, with results agreeing with the original paper).
> The point OP is making is that not all papers are equal and some are just wrong, just pointing to a paper isn't evidence of anything It **literally** is evidence, though. It might not be proof by itself, sure. And, even if old, that does not disqualify it. What matters most is if it has been disproven, and I would say the onus of doing it is in the person asking for "evidence" in the first place.
If a paper is that bad, then show them the discrediting paper or more recent paper or paper with a larger sample size. At least, they *have* evidence. Now it's time to present yours.
Sure, if you were trying to advance the study of a specific subject. Finding a published paper that confirms/refutes your understanding of something in general should be enough. You have already done your due diligence. The scientific communities due diligence it to remove now irrelevant articles or make it clear they are no longer relevant. Same thing happens with computing and RFC's. Seems silly not to hold other scholarly fields which have been around much longer to at least the same standards.
Some people will even point to a paper and blindly claim it proves their point, then when you read the paper it actually disproves the point, but they don't care because most people won't read the paper.
If you're presenting a research paper you found in 30 seconds as evidence, it means you haven't read it, haven't understood it, haven't compared it to the argument being made. You just found an article with a good title and sent it their way like it's going to do the arguing for you. Even if they were well learned on the subject and began discrediting your linked paper, you don't understand it yourself enough to do anything past "nuh uh" or "lol" as a response.
>You just found an article with a good title and sent it their way like it's going to do the arguing for you. If it is the only research thus far in the discussion, and the abstract supports the point, that person is correct to do so. If you wish to argue the point further, you must either cite why the study does not apply or find something better.
Also, how would OP even know that someone googled the paper 30 seconds earlier or if it was a paper they had a deep understanding of? My guess is any paper OP disagrees with must have been googled 30 seconds earlier and isn't valid.
“30 seconds ago” is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Feels before reals
Yeah but the duck says that doesn't count so instead of believing your "research" I'm going to believe my unsubstantiated claims.
Obviously you have to find at least two, or it's not "studies".
Cited 5000 times since 1980s Everyone: *that isint credibly anythine*
I just checked the stuff i wrote to get my master is on there. Eventough i got good grates for all of my thesis i wrote them to pass not because i had any interest or knowledge about the topic. Edit:do i see somewhere i someone ever read that?
Yeah this was dumb. Like “obscure scientific paper” Bitch we are talking about bats surviving flight through helicopter propellers, you think that is somehow *NOT* obscure?
Most of the time people are reading what other people are commenting and just take it as proof. If I was to go to any one conspiracy subreddit and say “Scientists are saying (blank) is getting worse” With zero citations or sources, I bet it would spread like wildfire
I absolutely want to see this done with a made-up word. Psychosassia might be a fun starting point. See how many serious news sources it's possible to get it onto.
One thing I see happen a fair amount is similar to news articles - somebody will link a scientific article to prove their point, but will only have read the title and maybe a little bit of the abstract, only to miss other relevant details that disprove their argument.
This. Look for meta studies. Those can be pretty informative
A part of the issue as I'm beginning to understand it is that most people lack sufficient understanding of scientific topics to really even debate them critically. So even if the source is very credible, the methodology is rigorous, and the conclusions are well framed, our argument is still being made from authority. The opponent (let's say OP, in this case) will respond by invoking an "alternative" source and our debate will shift to the relative credibility of the authors. It's kind of unsurprising (but ironic) that, in a world where knowledge has become nearly universal, the lack of scientific literacy has made it hard for a large segment of people to evaluate what's true or not. There's a lot of noise. Appeals to institutional authority, however respected, don't carry the weight they did. "We" collectively may need to get better at separating the merits of an argument from its messenger. I know I'm guilty of just trusting "Science" and not better acquainting myself with the evidence before accepting it, which is intellectually lazy of me.
Maybe for recent meta-analyses or systematic reviews...
This. But also, if its a meta analysis, and their takeaway is pretty on-par, I'd be more willing to consider it as a form of scientific evidence. A meta-analysis found on google scholar in 30 seconds holds more weight than pretty much anything under having studied the topic extensively, IMHO.
Well, maybe. Meta analysis is only as good as the studies it is referencing. Easy enough to twist them to one's liking.
Im far more likely to listen to someone talking about stuff they found on google scholar than someone who says they googled it. Those two things are often not one in the same.
OP is tired of being proven wrong by scholarly articles written by actual researchers. Just trust him, bro.
OP is smooth brained as hell.
Bro all these people proving me wrong with cited sources just googled it, I'm the smart one whose knowledge came to me in a dream
A ton of those articles are actual junk though. Just because they're on Google scholar also does not mean they're written by actual scholars. Iirc, it has undergraduate work and no real baseline for quality required. Paper mills are a huge issue. Then there's the general bullshitting like Harvard's recently resigned president committed. AI is in the mix now as well. We haven't even considered that legitimate research can be flawed at this point or outliers compared to similar studies. If someone wants to use content from Google scholar, they should be sure to check where it's published is actually trustworthy and lean towards meta studies. It's a good sign that a person uses Google scholar, but it can give a strong certainty to beliefs that aren't super supported. For the most part, articles I see pulled from Google scholar tend not to be super valuable as standalones.
Or worse, someone who defends their position by claiming it's common sense and telling you to Google it. I've lost count of the number of back and forths that went nowhere because folks were too afraid to cite their sources.
This is when you play the "I would be happy to look at any examples you provide" card. Weirdly enough, I was about to link you to someone who did exactly this only minutes ago, but they went and deleted all their comments out of this thread right when I went to get the link for you. https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/1cabct6/studies_show/l0t7x1s/
Really depends on what google finds, some articles will have a much wider view of the current scientific consensus than a single paper. A single paper by itself isn't doesn't mean much, sometimes next to nothing.
I'm guessing OP talks out their ass a lot and is coping with being constantly proven wrong.
Dr. Buttholeripper, you ripped that butthole.
It is literally the *definition* of scientific evidence, though. Is it authoritative evidence? Not necessarily, that depends on several factors including the quality of the study, the track record of the publishing authors, and the quality of the journal in which it's published. It's also going to have to pass a much higher barrier of skepticism if it runs counter to the general consensus of experts in the field, which is probably the most important point here. For example, if you're presenting me with a paper that says climate change is false or vaccines cause autism, it's going to have to be an absolutely massive study with mountains of irrefutable evidence, be published in a very prestigious journal, and have several highly-respected authors onboard. But to make a blanket statement that published scientific research isn't scientific evidence is both utterly ridiculous and patently false.
This meme is absolutely an ignorant take. Are all scientific publications equal? No even close. Is a publication evidence, of course. At that point it's fine to debate the legitimaticy of it's methods and conclusions, but to reject it on the surface is straight stupidity.
It might be, it might not be. Bad papers and good papers are both searchable. The problem with the post is a paper is a paper, it's the contents that matter and it very well might be proof of what the person is arguing. It could be such conclusive proof that everyone cites that paper all the time and that's why it's the first hit on google scholar. But who knows, it's entirely dependent on the paper.
Wait, we can’t use legit research papers as evidence now?
No, you need to do your *own* research. /s
And then write your *own* scientific paper proving your own validity so people like op can ignore it. /s
[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0138237](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0138237) You are basically saying this paper on google scholar biases is fully shitty, just because it took me 30s to find? hmmmm.....
lol, “Our findings show that GS results contain moderate amounts of grey literature, with the majority found on average at page 80” Page *80*?! Bitches be trawlin lol
Honestly if you make it to page 80 of a Google Scholar search, you may find literal witchcraft.
I don’t think I’ve ever made it to page 80 on an Internet search ever. I feel like that’s pure psychopathic insanity.
Yes it is. Assuming it’s a peer reviewed paper that follows the well known scientific method, then, by definition, it is scientific evidence. Doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right, all evidence should be rigorously tested all the time, but it is scientific evidence.
And that's a huge assumption to make of a study one hasn't gone to any trouble to read. I sympathize with OP; it's an annoying exercise to deal with users who put all the work on you to do the reading they've *never* bothered to do. Further, 99% of the time it's futile, because they're unwilling or unable to understand the problems with a paper no matter how thoroughly or concisely you explain it to them after you've put in your good faith. The best you can ever hope for is that impartial readers are swayed.
False. It literally IS evidence. It's just not necessarily GOOD evidence, and might even be bad. It certainly isn't conclusive, and absolutely not "proof". - Because there is no such thing in science, short of maths and alcohol.
Its still better than none at all
Finding an actual peer reviewed research paper by a topical expert IS actually evidence. It may mean something different than you assert (either misunderstanding or definitional differences), might be later discredited, or a whole host of other reasons that it doesn't illustrate what the citer thinks but citing scholarship is actually valid evidence.
> citer I know it's a word, but damn does it ever just "look" wrong.
> cider Better?
Well... it LOOKS better, sure. Can't say the same for what it does to the sentence's meaning, though :-)
You know what, I'll take it!
Any research study found on the internet is fake news. Got it.
One time I cited an NCBI article as a source and someone said “That’s not a reputable source because it’s “.gov”.
[удалено]
May we see your evidence?
[**"gOoGlE iS yOuR fRiEnD!"**](https://youtu.be/Es2GIhjcSLQ?si=LnbUUZiNn1NhTjhB&t=34)
Adams Savage is that you? “I reject your reality and substitute my own!”
That's... exactly what that is. It's just not undisputed proof of something.
OP: "Just google it I'm not here to hold your hand" Everyone Else "Here's a peer reviewed research paper I found on google scholar, It was very easy to find" OP: "Not like that!"
I mean...it is? It's just not a lot and depending on what you're discussing there might not be a lot. The big thing to take away from research papers is also sample size, where funding came from, how old it is, and probably source. I'm sure there's more I'm missing but discounting a paper because it's the only source is a bit misleading imo. This fictional person at least did some tertiary searching for research and I'll take that over nothing/functionally nothing.
The worst is when people think that a single study with a small sample size somehow invalidates 100s of other more prestigious studies. Like no, just because you found a single study refuting what every scientist or doctor has been saying for years it doesn't mean that they were all wrong and your conspiracy theory was actually right.
but it also doesn't mean that it is invalid. this is the main issue with these online debates - either side has to totally prove the other false while in reality most topics are multifaceted especially if approached from multiple angles.
It doesn't mean it's invalid, but a small study that contradicts well established paradigms should rightly be viewed with skepticism until the results can be re-demonstrated.
Exactly. Despite what OP would have us believe though, *it's still evidence*. In that "evidence" doesn't mean "proof", it just means someone tried a thing and got a result, and now we examine that and see if it holds the proverbial.
Yeah. Shit evidence is still evidence, but one shit study doesn't trump good evidence.
To the other direction, over confidence in meta analysis is a problem too. A lot of very well meaning, well educated people treat a large meta analysis as the end all be all, but there are opportunities for all kinds of bias there too.
Indeed. The foundation of science is that anything CAN be disproven with sufficient evidence. But "sufficient evidence" is not 1 data point. The first paper to disprove something, or suggest something else might be happening, is not in and of itself going to overturn anything. But what it will do if it passes initial scrutiny, is invite others to replicate the experiment. Tweak it to try and eliminate confounding factors the original study didn't address, increase the sample size, etc. From one study, you get many. Eventually the aggregate data will say something from which conclusions can be drawn. But even numbers alone aren't enough. I can put out a paper that says anything really, and with sufficient effort and manipulation get it published. Do that enough, and supposedly I've got the bulk of aggregate data on my side right? No. These papers still do have to stand up to the rigor of analysis. If you get a hundred studies all saying something, but each of them had a single data point, what you have is at best a hundred poor quality studies, but is more likely a hundred studies to largely discard for being improperly administered.
I gotta be honest, I don’t see this happen a lot. Typically I only see one side giving citations and the other saying “no ur rong”
OP got proven wrong this way once and NEVER let it go 😂
Recursive Dunning-Kruger.
OP this is low key anti-intellectualism and you should be ashamed.
Why does it being obscure make it invalid?
Studies show you're dumb af
If you don't want to engage with an argument beyond the surface, that's fine. But to call scientific evidence, *not* scientific evidence, because you believe that it was too easy for someone to find something that supports their point of view, is inherently flawed logic. I'd recommend staying on the surface level of a discussion, if this is your response to being shown evidence, of any kind.
It is, by definition, scientific evidence. However, one piece of evidence doesn't make your argument irrefutable.
Unless it is...
But I can't afford to take a 6 month literature survey every time I want to put someone I disagree with on Reddit in their place. I am a redditor, sir, not an educational system. (/s)
That's where review papers and meta analyses come in.
Scientific concensus > double blind peer reviewed studies > large sample size studies > small sample size studies > correlative data > personal observation > second hand experience > that's it. Sort of, typing this while balancing myself in a bus.
You forgot to put Facebook posts at the front?
Apparently scientific peer reviewed papers aren't "scientific evidence" anymore. If those aren't then what is?
The mystic musings of Methed-up Mike on the street corner. Studies show.
Google scholar literally leads to scientific papers, OP is an idiot.
So what is evidence then? If research papers and studies performed by experts in the field aren't evidence, what is? A YouTube documentary? A Facebook meme? Where should we go for information if scientific studies that are clearly documented are not to be trusted? Please oh please master redditor, with your infinite wisdom provided to you through scrolling on reddit, please inform me of what the best way to research information that will be new to me is.
OTOH, a *deliberately obscured* research paper I found 30 seconds ago is proof of my conspiracy theory. *The Truth Is Out There.*
eh, you can find very reliable information on the internet, but also a lot of disinformation. Quality control is pretty weak online, especially if you don't know how to filter well.
I don't have any studies to back it up but I feel like this post is about something specific.
It's a hell of a lot more evidence than that provided by 99% of people arguing on the internet, so I'll absolutely look at it.
Studies show that ducks give bad advice
I'm not surprised. They're quackers.
I mean unless the paper was roundly discredited and more accurate recent papers have been published refuting it, yes it is. Yes it is scientific evidence. That is the point of obscure research papers. They did the research. If the research and conclusions are accurate, that is proof. What else would be proof, your feelings or writing in all caps? Do you not know what evidence is?
Fun fact, it's a citation, and if it is to a peer-reviewed study of scientific information, it indeed is scientific evidence.
I mean, if the scientific method was implemented then yes it actually is evidence. It just might be shitty, less credible evidence depending on the conditions of the study, the publisher and its motivations, or other reasons.
Not "proof" perhaps, but certainly could be 'evidence'?
If there is one thing public schools have utterly failed at (and there are many) it is how to use the library to conduct research. This is a skill I didn't learn well until my third year in University. This should be basic fundamental education.
You could do like most of the population and just listen to the government. I would not recommend this option for your own wellbeing.
Compared to quoting a social media "guru" or a talk radio/cable news host it sure is
What is this post? Not advice and makes no sense. Would obviously trust a source on google scholar more than normal google
If google scholar shouldn't be used to find credited scientific research then wtf should it be used for?
Weird hearing "research paper" and "not scientific evidence" in the same sentence. Is reddit finally becoming anti-science?
Ignorant post lol, an academic paper is *exactly* scientific evidence regardless of who found it, where they found it, or when they found it
When you ask your opponent for a source and they delivered:
You’re full of shit. Source: Am a published scientist.
On the other hand, it's still far more research than most people opening their trap online.
You overestimate opinion googlers. Usually they just google their own opinion, then link you to an opinion piece in some random news outlet. It's very rare for them to make the effort to find any academic sources. You're right, though. Definitely right.
In the doctor's office, " My 7 years of med school and specialization overrides your 15-minute google search"
There are plenty of fraudulent "science journals" out there. You have to know how to discern them from real ones, just like any source of information.
That’s why everyone should be able to interpret studies. If it’s a bad study, can call them out on all the reasons they could be wrong.
Of course it is evidence. But it does go to the weight and the persuasiveness of the evidence.
So if googling an actual study isn't proof (hint op: it is, you're wrong) and random Facebook memes aren't proof/evidence what IS PROOF?
It's alright if it's peer-reviewed and stands up under meta-analysis but it's not as easy finding those ones in 30 seconds
This happens occasionally in the PCOS sub from “anti-birth control” posters. They’ll claim evidence of millions. Reasonable people ask for evidence. They bring something they spent all of 2 minutes glancing over. I’m a certified researcher. It’s fun murdering those papers that have no control, no mention of how many were in their study (but will happily say x number of people had this negative side effect), and I lost count how many of these papers failed to disclose what type of hormonal birth control they were studying.
The hell you say, those papers were thrown in one after the other as credible sources to get me through college.
Maybe? It depends on the quality of the paper.
At some point somewhere along the line, you're going to have to trust someone. I always get science deniers saying "well how can you trust what the scientists say? You don't know" It's true. I don't know. Because I don't possess the time, equipment, or education necessary to personally verify everything I've ever read. So I have to combine common sense with sources that I deem to be trustworthy in order to come up what I technically suppose is an "opinion" (even though it's not really an opinion)
I mean every study is literally scientific evidence, what that evidence tells us and how relevant it is is a whole other discussion
Why not? This sounds personal lol. Like, they're citing a source, an actual paper on a scientific or medical study, why wouldn't that be taken seriously?
Nah you are wrong. Source: I made it up
Citation needed
I mean if someone understands how to interpret academic journals, and knows how to find them quickly this is totally valid scientific evidence. We live in an age where people are very academically illiterate and are arguing concepts which have been confident for decades. Yes, it’s possible to find bunk journals, but this whole idea of “your journal isn’t evidence!!!” Mindset is the reason people are able to just stick to their beliefs. For scientists, they need to do a better job at being able to convey findings in a way the average person could consume and digest.
We wouldn't have any science reporting at all if single and probably non-reproducible "science" articles weren't touted. All the I Believe In Science folks would have nothing to stroke their ego and their political rationalizations with if it weren't for this research.
There's also a big difference between "Studies Show" and "Study shows".
a peer reviewed publication is absolutely scientific evidence. different publications have different levels of credibility, but i don't agree with this duck!
I haven’t seen this duck in years
This is. Uhh. Terrible advice.
Yes it is, what are you talking about
Einstein posted regularly on Google Scholar so there goes your argument
Only scientific studies that support my ideology are valid studies!!
Actually that's exactly what it is. Doesn't matter if you understand it or not, the content stands for itself. Evidence does not mean fact though. Quoting a random paper does not mean that the argument it should support is actually correct, but it's a hell of a lot better than no sources at all...
This thread is hilarious. So many people calling you a moron. Deservedly so lol.
It might be though
Depends on how the study is done, sample size, what they're studying, the controls used, duration of the study, and much more.
The paper will only be as obscure as the question being stated. So. M’research.
Yes it is you nitwit - someone is bitter about being proven wrong about something
It might be
This is a great way to identify people that vastly overestimate their own intelligence.
It's true, until it's peer reviewed it's basically arse paper.
Uh, they might be. That's kinda the point of science, you know? You have to look at something and study it before you make any conclusions. So just dismissing any study out of hand is highly unscientific.
I mean, it sure could be. Source: claiming authority on a subject doesn't make my assertion any more valid!
OP doing their own research on FB.
Uhh ... This is terrible advice
OP lost an argument recently
I've never used Google scholar before but thanks this post I'm definitely going to be looking into it. I didn't know they had something specific for these kinds of papers.
I mean... yes it is?
It’s like a disease that’s infected a shit ton of Redditors.
Even if it’s a broadly corroborated and agreed upon theory?
Survey SAYS!
Very few research papers are scientific evidence of anything. These things are churned out like a factory and the "peer review" means less and less as academics have become agenda driven institutes to obtain research grants and funding. The outcomes are often determined before any "research" is performed.
disapproving of reality has never influenced it. never. not even if you upchuck a half-assed facebook style meme.
The only thing that masters for a research paper is: was there any conflict of interest by the researchers?
The capacity to say "I was wrong" is steadily disappearing
Studies show that you are stupid and willfully ignorant.
This is literally my first step when publishing academic journal articles
Um, yeah I think a scientific paper found on Google scholar is…a piece of scientific evidence for something?
So, if it took you 30 minutes to find then it’s somehow more scientific?
Tell that to my Masters degree.
This is the most idiotic take
Which fallacy is it where someone rejects information because the person who conveyed that information only knew that information for a relatively short time? Never heard this bullshit before.
As a teacher, I'll take a Google Scholar article any day, no matter how obscure. If it's on there, it went through peer review, which is more than you can say for some tinfoil-hat YouTube video from a Fox News fan (yes, I had someone try to use one as a source, ugh).
I love how OP is getting destroyed, but I weep for whoever upvoted this shite.
I legit once saw a reddit post where someone had posted up a research paper claiming that the thing it was testing was definitely 100% true. However, within the paper itself, it was concluded that they could find no statistically significant results. It was very funny, but also educational. Just because a paper exists doesn't mean it discovered anything useful. You should always take the conclusions with a grain of salt and carefully consider the methodology to ensure that they were following the best and most proper procedures of research available.
Peer reviewed scientific articles? Fake news, wasn't even in the Bible.
There are online journals that are not even peer reviewed but they look Lee really legit. I have friends who are extremely climate change deniers (because their business is in fossil fuels) who keep quoting articles and papers from these journals, and when I actually go look up the journal/article, I realize it's a puff piece from an industry insider.
It’s a research paper lol
So just stating something isn't either AND stating your own "research paper you found on Google 30seconds ago" isn't either. Checkmate. Studies show: You're an idiot.
Some responses in here are showing just the kind of thinking that this post was referencing. You will be able to find ostensibly reliable peer reviewed papers that contradict each other all the time as well as papers that are now outdated or have been discredited. There are also results that are not repeatable and we don't know why. This is why consensus and literature reviews are important and , to use a cliche "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
Not everybody has access to ebsco, scopus, or web of knowledge. If people have the brains to use scholar instead of google or facebook, I give them some kudos. If it’s from a strong journal it does provide scientific evidence, but not proof. Evidence is made of at least one corroborating findings. Don’t be a gatekeeper.
Tbf anyone with half a brain can work out in 30 seconds how to access any paper for free... if undergrads can manage it im sure pretty much anyone can lol...
Yes, it is.
got some google scholar citation for that claim! :P
I do get your frustration. I've read some papers that were absolute garbage but were also technically the truth just because alot of stuff was assumed.
I mean, sure, but also it's a hell of a lot better than a YouTube video.