Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
By reading the study and not relying on someone's interpretation of it.
The issue is relying on that shifts the bulk of the work to the reader. Most people don't have the time (or let's be honest, the knowledge and experience) to properly go back through the sources and look at the raw data and conclusions to make your own assessments.
As I wrote my dissertation, one fascinating thing was when you followed citations back to their source. Often they did not claim what was said. I am not talking about different interpretations, I am talking about the citation that didn't even remotely resemble what was cited. I would say it was well over 30% of the citations.
As such not only reading the study but following the cites back as well.
Thats the problem, to properly understand studies, you have to have a solid background in that field. You cant expect the average person to have knowledge in any particular subject.