(no title)
sapling-ginger | 1 year ago
Also, research journals are really just fancy forum boards where researchers in a particular fields talk to each other, and even occasionally shit talk. They aren't ever supposed to be a source of truth, and in fact the first thing we learnt as grad student is how to critically read a research journal article and try to poke holes in the study. We are supposed to assume that the articles are wrong, until we can be convinced that they are likely to be correct.
Sometimes I think Google Scholars is a mistake. The general public aren't supposed to be exposed to research literature.
ars|1 year ago
Then you have the type: "I saw this interesting thing", and that's also close enough to the truth. Geology, Astronomy, Archeology are examples.
That's a study.
But if I look at my own navel and decide "I like this idea because it makes sense to me", that's not a study. That type should get a different name. Theoretical Physics is the high quality version of this.
I'm not saying there's no value in this type of thing!! Just that it's not a study.
Maybe call them "research papers".
> Sometimes I think Google Scholars is a mistake. The general public aren't supposed to be exposed to research literature.
Yikes!!! So basically you want people to be sheep and just listen to what they are told, with no access to underlying material?
I'd rather people look at the source, and understand it poorly, vs not look at it at all.
rini17|1 year ago
No. It's when someone else does "this" and reproduces the result only using your article, only then that's close to truth.