5 ms·
>Instead of giving in to a gut reaction, you should read the paper. All research must get funding in one way or another. If you exclude research due to funding
by crdoconnor 9y ago
>Instead of giving in to a gut reaction, you should read the paper. All research must get funding in one way or another. If you exclude research due to funding sources and potential conflicts of interest, you wouldn't be left with much.
It makes sense to try and figure out what the funders would want the answer to be and see if the research matches that. If it does, shouldn't you be more skeptical?
For example, if Exxon funded research saying that global warming isn't caused by man or Walmart funded research saying that raising the minimum wage causes mass unemployment then it's pretty clear that they would benefit from the result.
In this example it looks like these companies probably just want to be associated with MIT (or they have an interest in other pieces of research) and I can't see any particular reason to suppose that they'd be invested in the outcome of this study in particular.
- Clanan 9y agoEvery patron of every piece of research is hoping to benefit from it. I certainly agree that a reader should consider the goals of the authors and backers, and I would hope the authors would make both clear. I just get piqued when intellectual laziness steps in and says "don't read this, it's funded by biased sponsors (i.e. humans)!"
- randall 9y agoI think this is a very salient point... it's essentially ad hominem and I'm tempted to fall into this fallacy. Thanks!
- crdoconnor 9y ago>Every patron of every piece of research is hoping to benefit from it. A) Not always. Bill Gates funding malaria research doesn't benefit him. B) If you benefit from the research being accurate and truthful that's very different to only benefitting if the research yields a particular answer.