3 ms·

I don't. My point is that we should always be aware of the financiers behind any piece of research, prescribed solution, etc. and teach people to think critical

I don't. My point is that we should always be aware of the financiers behind any piece of research, prescribed solution, etc. and teach people to think critically about this.

slg 5y ago
But someone with an invested interest in research funding that research doesn't inherently mean the conclusion is wrong. If anything your suggestion would lead to more conspiracy theories and not less as people are now more focused on the motives for the research rather than the body of that research.
- rgrieselhuber 5y ago
  It doesn't mean that but it should always be treated as a possible factor, and analyzed in light of other connections. Collusion is very real when billions of dollars are on the line and it is naive to assume otherwise.
  - slg 5y ago
    >It doesn't mean that but it should always be treated as a possible factor, and analyzed in light of other connections. But do you not see how this will result in conspiracy theories? You are no longer engaging with the merits of a study and are instead questioning the motivations and source behind that study. You are shifting from a more objective argument to a more subjective one allow more room for conspiracy theories. >Collusion is very real when billions of dollars are on the line and it is naive to assume otherwise. Yes, which is why "do your own research" is often misleading because those billions of dollars have greatly impacted what research is available to you.
    - rgrieselhuber 5y ago
      Ok, let's look at a scenario. If a board member of a powerful pharmaceutical company was also a chief executive at a news organization responsible for "fact-checking" claims about that company's medicines, would it be inappropriate to wonder about financial incentives?
      - slg 5y ago
        You seem to only be looking at the surface of this issue. I agree that it is appropriate to be concerned about conflict of interest, but what happens when you take it one step further beyond your comment? I decide to "do my own research" and plug the drug's name into Google. The top site that comes up is the same news organization's fact check because no one else has a financial incentive to investigate this issue and report the truth. Me "doing my own research" leads me to the same biased information. The "do your own research" portion doesn't fix anything.
        rgrieselhuber 5y ago
        I’d be willing to bet that most people with the gall to do their own research will look beyond the first result that appears on the SERP... It’s fundamentally an epistemological question: what is the ontological basis for thinking we know something?
        slg 5y ago
        >I’d be willing to bet that most people with the gall to do their own research will look beyond the first result that appears on the SERP... Once again this is thinking that doesn't go beyond the first layer. If this situation is possible for the first link, it is possible for the second and the third and everything on the first 5 pages. However deep this hypothetical researcher is willing to go, if there are enough billions at stake the manipulator can keep pumping out misinformation. They have a financial incentive to lie and no one has a strong financial incentive for truth so how does this researcher find the needle of truth in the haystack of lies?
        rgrieselhuber 5y ago
        It goes far beyond the first layer, to the ultimate layer: what is the basis of our presuppositions about knowledge? How do we authenticate what we think we know?
        5y ago

I don't. My point is that we should always be aware of the financiers behind any piece of research, prescribed solution, etc. and teach people to think critically about this.

slg 5y ago

But someone with an invested interest in research funding that research doesn't inherently mean the conclusion is wrong. If anything your suggestion would lead to more conspiracy theories and not less as people are now more focused on the motives for the research rather than the body of that research.

rgrieselhuber 5y ago
It doesn't mean that but it should always be treated as a possible factor, and analyzed in light of other connections. Collusion is very real when billions of dollars are on the line and it is naive to assume otherwise.
- slg 5y ago
  >It doesn't mean that but it should always be treated as a possible factor, and analyzed in light of other connections. But do you not see how this will result in conspiracy theories? You are no longer engaging with the merits of a study and are instead questioning the motivations and source behind that study. You are shifting from a more objective argument to a more subjective one allow more room for conspiracy theories. >Collusion is very real when billions of dollars are on the line and it is naive to assume otherwise. Yes, which is why "do your own research" is often misleading because those billions of dollars have greatly impacted what research is available to you.
  - rgrieselhuber 5y ago
    Ok, let's look at a scenario. If a board member of a powerful pharmaceutical company was also a chief executive at a news organization responsible for "fact-checking" claims about that company's medicines, would it be inappropriate to wonder about financial incentives?
    - slg 5y ago
      You seem to only be looking at the surface of this issue. I agree that it is appropriate to be concerned about conflict of interest, but what happens when you take it one step further beyond your comment? I decide to "do my own research" and plug the drug's name into Google. The top site that comes up is the same news organization's fact check because no one else has a financial incentive to investigate this issue and report the truth. Me "doing my own research" leads me to the same biased information. The "do your own research" portion doesn't fix anything.
      - rgrieselhuber 5y ago
        I’d be willing to bet that most people with the gall to do their own research will look beyond the first result that appears on the SERP... It’s fundamentally an epistemological question: what is the ontological basis for thinking we know something?
        slg 5y ago
        >I’d be willing to bet that most people with the gall to do their own research will look beyond the first result that appears on the SERP... Once again this is thinking that doesn't go beyond the first layer. If this situation is possible for the first link, it is possible for the second and the third and everything on the first 5 pages. However deep this hypothetical researcher is willing to go, if there are enough billions at stake the manipulator can keep pumping out misinformation. They have a financial incentive to lie and no one has a strong financial incentive for truth so how does this researcher find the needle of truth in the haystack of lies?
        rgrieselhuber 5y ago
        It goes far beyond the first layer, to the ultimate layer: what is the basis of our presuppositions about knowledge? How do we authenticate what we think we know?
        5y ago