In another thread someone said Googling is not researching. True or False?

[Problem Child]

True! Google is a portal (as is the door to a library) you enter to find information.

Through Google you can access highly credible information. In medical you can see Lancet, the AMA journals, PubMed, peer review articles. You can also put in a medical question, and as the last word, put "Mayo." You will get information from this highly respected organization.

Same for questions about animal care, laws in any country, state or Provence, etc. plumbing and just about anything else. And just like a hardback library, you can find some information from doubtful sources.

Just to clear a point.

[gringal]

Big deal. I think everyone already knew that. I agree with you that Google is a starting point for research. However, it has its limits. Mayo clinic findings will not replace a visit to the doc for diagnosis.

[Problem Child]

Gringall is right on, however, Mayo or some other authoritative site may give you some questions for your physician if you feel it it needed. Sometimes, depending on symptons, what you tell the doctor you are concerned about may help him/her with a differential diagnosis.

I'm basically saying, don't discount it when someone says they found something by going to Google.

[CanuckBob]

I think she was referring to people that never post a thought of their own. They just cut and paste some unsubstantiated crap they found on Google.

[Carry Bean]

I think she was referring to people that never post a thought of their own. They just cut and paste some unsubstantiated crap they found on Google.

A whole lot of that going on.

[ferret]

This is a slippery slope. If someone googles something and it is from a REPUTABLE source such as any of the published articles in a medical journal, which in and of itself has references listed at the bottom of it which you can further "research", I don't understand what the problem is.

Or you could just ban links completely and it would just be one person's opinion over another's... like Trump's whose opinions are nothing but trumped up lies.

What's your preference?

[ltollefs]

A. You've failed to identify a slippery slope fallacy.
B. Your second clause is itself a logical fallacy, one of assuming the conclusion. You assume that people can recognize a "REPUTABLE source" when they see one. If the internet is evidence of anything at all, it is that they can't. I could say so, so much more on this subject, but I'm tired and I'm not Sisyphus.

[ferret]

OK then, will you be refreshed in the morning so as to discuss this further? I'm interested in your opinions.

[Problem Child]

A  "REPUTABLE source" I believe would be one that is generally accepted as authoritative  by persons within the group seeking information on or about the specific subject.

I believe that The Mayo Clinic, reviews found at Pub Med, Johns Hopkins, The Cleveland Clinic, to mention a few in one area.

I believe generally Consumer Reports (magazine) is considered a reputable source as is Greys Anatomy (book, not show). Also, articles authored by M.I.T.

I would also add, going to the source. As an example, I had a question about Mexican Constitutional law. I asked a Lakeside attorney who spoke fluent English, and he really didn't know the answer. So I found a copy of the current Mexican Constitution and a copy of the applicable Mexican code (in Spanish). I had the part I wanted to know translated to English. I considered these sources "reputable." However, the final answer was subject to interpretation (the issue was criminal law). So I took a translator to the enforcement agency and asked a supervising level person m question. It was a "yes" or "no" question, and he gave me the/his answer. I believe all of the sources I consulted to be reputable.

That's my thought on it.

[gringal]

As we can observe in the current political climate, one person's truth is another person's blatant lie.
I find it frustrating when I ask a specific question and am rewarded with an answer to a totally different question, i.e. one about hurricane Michael is answered by citing  information about hurricane Irma.

Mostly, Google is a valuable tool if used correctly.  It's a huge library available without getting off your butt.  But, there's a lot of "buts" involved.

[addtocart]

A. You've failed to identify a slippery slope fallacy.
B. Your second clause is itself a logical fallacy, one of assuming the conclusion. You assume that people can recognize a "REPUTABLE source" when they see one. If the internet is evidence of anything at all, it is that they can't. I could say so, so much more on this subject, but I'm tired and I'm not Sisyphus.

I'll say.

[ferret]

Something that is a known fact, which can be checked through multiple written sources, does not change when it makes its way to the Internet.

Opinions are opinions based on a personal observation of the written facts.

Lies are a blatant misrepresentation of known information to serve a personal agenda.

And guess who is the biggest liar of them all.

[ltollefs]

Facts, as we understand them in our work-a-day world, are provisional. During the 14th. century in Europe The Plague was thought to be caused by the Jews. Now we know about Yersinia pestis. Some believed that Gilgamesh killed The Bull of Heaven. I wonder how many people today have even heard the name Gilgamesh. In one notable piece of literature the value of Pi is said to be 3, Bats are said to be Birds, snakes eat dirt and can talk. All true, all false? Depends on who you talk to. Until Hubble (1929ish), we were happy to contemplate the singular wonder of the Milky Way, now we know there are trillions of galaxies. The Catholic church waited 350 years before absolving Galileo. Facts are hardly immutable; in fact they dance so quickly that trying to pin one down is a fool's errand.

Opinions are often developed quite independently of any available facts.

To Lie requires the element of intent. That something may have been "blatantly misrepresented" is an opinion.

[ferret]

Even scientifically based medical articles change over the years. You can't cherry pick. There has to be a logical time line for the change.
Eventual death used to be the diagnosis for diabetes and blocked arteries. And the world used to be assumed to be flat.

Can we settle on facts in context supported by a time frame?

But he's either still a liar or unbelievably stupid that he believes his own made up facts. Facts that can be checked and disputed.

[gringal]

"Facts are hardly immutable; in fact they dance so quickly that trying to pin one down is a fool's errand."

They were not "facts" in the first place. They were "beliefs" when first presented, sans scientific evidence, and remained so.  Opinions are also "beliefs".

I also have to question that last sentence.  To "blatantly misrepresent" requires intent. Right offhand, I can think of an habitual liar who deliberately misrepresents many things, as proven when scientifically garnered facts counter his statements.
However, we are straying into nitpicking at this point.

A short bow to the Jesuits; the best liars of all time,  possibly.

[ltollefs]

"To "blatantly misrepresent" requires intent." Not necessarily, sometimes all that's required is ignorance.

Here's an excellent essay by Asimov that's related to the discussion...

The Relativity of Wrong.

[ferret]

A well thought out and logical evolution of events. But the article is still time lined in context. Thanks

[gringal]

"To "blatantly misrepresent" requires intent." Not necessarily, sometimes all that's required is ignorance.

Here's an excellent essay by Asimov that's related to the discussion...

The Relativity of Wrong.

Ah yes.  Some posters do that. I was thinking of politicians, who know better and misrepresent anyway.

[ferret]

Doesn't the saying go...
"You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts."

[Sponsored content]