I've posted this before in another forum but only got 1 response so I'm gonna assume hardly anyone seen it and refuse to believe that there could be any intellectually snobbery going on! So I'm gonna post it again here...so apologies in advance if its in the wrong place.

I keep reading throughout the forums on this website that research is very important, and have even had my hands slapped for not researching and posting 'bunk'
Would it be possible if people could help me (and others who would have no idea how to go about researching) out and post what they believe makes credible research material.
Things like scholars who are (un)credible, and reasons as to what makes them (un)credible.
Likewise with websites/books too.
And finally...
How does one go about researching any subject so that one can construct an informed, open minded opinion?
Any help in this area would be truly welcomed by myself, and would surely benefit the whole community, enabeling anyone who can be bothered to do some serious 'digging'

Cheers
Ste

Use the analytical research style, if you are looking for information on a particular subject get sources from a variety of websites (when using internet) dont rely on just the one. There are many 'intelectuals' who many people disagree with on here some are outright bogus and others self styled experts so be careful. Try googling the names of any academics linked to any articles you are reading/researching especially if they are reffered to as DR or Professor etc. this method, whilst not always working, usually determines wether such a person exists/is credible/or holds the title stated. When using books again use the same techniques gain information from at least two texts referring to the same subject if they contradict then find other sources to back up what you are looking for, also just use your own common sense to form your own arguments once you are able to do this then you will be just about ready to get started.
Hope this helps someway towards your research.

You could use the "search" function here at U-M to see what's been posted before on a given subject.

From these old threads you might turn up some reasonable sources.

Harte

Ex-Rector pretty much hit the nail on the head. I'd say if you're seriously researching something, stay away from the internet unless you're very, very careful. The easiest thing to do is always check your sources out -- find out about the person who wrote an article; double-check references; fact check.

--Jaylemurph

And on the risk of being repetitive, there are mostly good libraries available in any community. Having something printed in a book is mostly hundredfold more expensive than having a website...so it is less likely to contain outright bunk (sometimes outright lies though).

You could also use databases. If you're still in school, check to see what databases that school has access to.

Thanks ever so much for the help chaps, its very much appreciated.

Cheers
ste

I disagree. Having someting printed in a book means only that someone can afford to publish it themselves, or that a publisher believes that the book will sell. Very little thought is given in this process to factual accuracy (with the general exception of textbooks and avoiding libel). For example, try 'fact checking' or 'logic checking' some von Daniken.


To the OP: Good question! My own fairly arbitrary top ten:

1) Try to read both sides of any claim. If the thing you're reading is controversial, try to understand why it's controversial.

2) Try to develop a 'spider sense' for possible nonsense. It's hard to explain how it works, but if you start to do your reading with a 'how do they know that?' hat on, a certain intuition can be developed.

3) Also develop a sense of hierarchy in judging the reliability of sources. This would probably range from 'peer-reviewed academic article', down to 'difficult-to-read website with too many fonts, colours and moving things, and a prominent photo of the author which wouldn't look out of place on a list of people banned from TrekFest 1983'.

4) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Soundbite, I know, but it is a fair rule of thumb to say that the claim "I once had a hamster called Graham" will require less rigorous justification than the claim that "I once had a hamster who told me his name was Graham".

5) If the stuff you're looking at is of a scientific nature - i.e., it's making verifiable claims about the nature of the world or any part of it - then see what other scientists have made of the claim. Google the claimant - 'real' scientist, or nutter in an attic? Check the references - does the article cite the British Journal of Medicine, or channeled messages from Planet X?

6) Ask what the motive of the author is. What's the view being 'sold'? What's in it for the author? Money? Fame? Book sales? Women? A smug sense of spiritual superiority?

7) Check out the type of language being used. As a general rule, there are certain 'red flag' words or phrases which indicate nonsense: 'quantum'; 'vibrations'; 'energy'; 'life force'; 'can it be a coincidence that...?', etc.

8) Think about the real-world consequences if a claim an article makes is true. For instance, what would the world really be like if the human mind could influence probability? If the government were capable of perpetrating worldwide conspiracies involving the knowing collusion of thousands of people? If there are people who are able to simply will money to come to them?

9) Find out as much about the 'establishment' view of things as you can; the 'accepted academic consensus' is not always true by definition (indeed by its nature it is always tentative), but offers the only reasonable baseline to which to compare claims and theories.

10) Always bear in mind burden of proof. If someone is making a claim, it is up to them to supply the reasons why that claim is true, rather than to demand others disprove it.

But don't trust this list - you've no reason to believe it's true!

Which falls under the second part of my post ...

And so sorry, but serious publishers give lots of thought to fact checking. If it comes to non-fiction it is the second largest bill of my company.

Okay, so you're differentiating 'serious publishers' - which is similar to my 'textbooks' qualification. However, personally, my bookshelf is groaning with 'seriously published' books which could in no way be considered trustworthy sources. Conspiracy theories, alternative history, ghosts, religion, pseudoscience (especially the latter) - all liberally sprinkled with made up claims, fictional events, wilfully misleading information and inaccurate data, and all purporting to be non-fiction. I therefore think it's misleading to characterise books as 'more accurate' than other sources purely due to the expense of their production; since books are made to sell, as your company presumably knows.

What's the first largest bill?

It is the press work(layout, printing, photography, etc). To launch a "serious" book costs about $50.000 before it even hits the shelf, $25.000 if it is a pocket book. About half of what is published never returns this money. In very few cases the publicity campaign is the most expensive (like with politician's memoirs), there your costs could easily get into the low hundred thousands to half a million(like Clinton's book and Lewinsky's book, both never returned anywhere near the advances they got... let alone the costs).

I agree with you that there are publishers (and sometimes serious publishers' off-brands) who could not care less about the content, as long as sales are good. But they are a very small segment of the market (tough here they appear to be the biggest).

That is a lot of money. Strange that those books shouldn't return the outlay - well, Clinton's at least (Lewinsky was more of a zeitgeist, I guess, once the moment's passed I can see that sales will dwindle). Perhaps the major political books have a longevity which justifies the cost?


That's interesting - from a consumer standpoint (and from my experience working in a library for a couple of years some time ago) those sorts of books seem to me to be very popular: the ever-growing 'Mind, Body, Spirit' section in bookshops seems mostly comprised of those sorts of books, as well as the dubious Self-Help sections, a good portion of the Popular Science market, and so on. If I had to guess where the money was, I'd have guessed that it's there.

Switch that "TrekFest" to "PanoptiCon" and that sounds exactly like www.ourbassetmasters.com.

--Jaylemurph

At the expense of derailing the topic: The money is in books that keep on being published year after year with little changes. The Zeitgeist books is something you have but never make any money on.

In fact, if somebody charged royalties to publish the Bible he would be richer than anybody else in the world.

From my own perspective in my studies of Egypt and the Near East, there are far too many books for me to recommend on that topic so I won't bore anyone with a lengthy list. I would agree with others that the internet is best avoided as a research tool unless you know the material well enough to recognize what is reliable and what is junk, but of course this supposes that you're at least somewhat knowledgeable to begin with.

However, there are cases where the internet can be invaluable. A tool I use is JSTOR. This is a collection of articles and book extracts written by vetted and respected scholars. The downside is that it's primarily for professional research and so is not accessible from most people's home computers. However, many public and university libraries allow you to use JSTOR. I have downloaded many binders' worth of material from this resource.

As for knowing whom to trust, I don't think I need to go into a diatribe about the quacks and charlatans to avoid. One thing I often do when I encounter an author with whom I'm unfamiliar, is check on the internet to see if that person has his or her own web page that contains a bibliography or "resume" (so here's another way the internet can be useful). A list of degress that person possesses as well as his or her own compilation of published papers, can be very revealing. And if you see terms like "rogue Egyptologist" you know you needn't even bother with that person--if he needs to add an odd modifier to his title, he's not the real thing to begin with and is most likely a crackpot.

A very good question to bring to UM, RamblingRebel.