When Bad Research is Popular (Members Video)
Added 2024-02-02 06:06:52 +0000 UTCHey everyone! Here's the latest member's video. While I research, I come across work that is highly regarded by the public but poorly regarded by the academic world. I think the discrepancy on its own is interesting, but it also presents a puzzle for me to deal with when I produce content. Thinking about that gave me the idea to produce this piece, and I basically sat down and recorded this off the top of my head using materials that relate to my upcoming video.
I hope you enjoy!
- Ryan
Comments
I'm convinced that just about everythink we believe to be objectively true it just what we choose to believe, from what we've been told, no matter the source. I love that you (Ryan) dig into sources but life is often the weirdest thing and sometimes the unlikely source could be the true one. However I don't think we can ever know and we have to be happy with the not knowing. From observation of my own, it is the human need to know that has given rise to the most believable of untruths.
Ma
2024-07-30 21:46:57 +0000 UTCI like to do my own research but don't know what sources to trust or how and where the info was gathered. Thanks for the guidance.
Edward Edney
2024-07-20 23:07:46 +0000 UTCIn my humble opinion the topic of Bad Research is quite crucial especially in the current world where a lot of information (good and bad) is quickly disseminated over the internet, social media, etc. Ryan here focusses mainly on the academic realm, which is in turn very critical and linked to the general issue of bad information being disseminated, since if we cannot fully trust the authoritative sources, then it becomes incredibly challenging to make sense of the world around us. This also links to a topic brought up in a much older video by Ryan titled 'Why we believe things that aren't true"? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy4Z7DTd9uo), which introduces the interesting concept of 'memetics'. My main concern here is that we may risk losing faith completely in the value of seeking the truth, however one may define that - for me it is about applying the scientific method. This could then lead to a world where everything is possible and believable as long as it is well packaged and credible, and we have been seeing a few terrible examples of that from history.
Livio Accattatis
2024-07-12 01:51:52 +0000 UTCMale a video about the relationship with Modern Science
Tariq Erwa
2024-05-30 00:33:05 +0000 UTCThis is far from saying that Poland invaded Germany.
Mark Conrad
2024-04-29 22:22:27 +0000 UTCThat footnote may be an exaggeration. The Sept 1 1939 headline of the NYTimes was "German Army Attacks Poland; Cities Bombed, Port Blockaded; Danzig Is Accepted Into Reich". The first lines of the lead article are: "Berlin, Friday, Sept. 1--Charging that Germany had been attacked, Chancellor Hitler at 5:11 o'clock this morning issued a proclamation to the army declaring that from now on force will be met with force and calling on the armed forces "to fulfill their duty to the end."
Mark Conrad
2024-04-29 22:21:49 +0000 UTCMaybe present this subject in a way that shows the effects of time on history, and show how distorted it can get. Use examples like Washington and the cherry tree or other historical common misconceptions taken as fact. Ones that are well familiar to the general public. Also show how generally speaking the closer to the source the evidence is the better but how that’s often also not the case due to biases and other motives.
Mathieu St-Louis
2024-04-25 07:02:05 +0000 UTCThis was excellent. Especially as I recently started reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Your food for thought is always appreciated.
FFCottage
2024-04-12 03:14:59 +0000 UTCHere is an interesting (and ironic) note about William Shirer. I've been reading a book (amongst many others) called "The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times's Misreporting, Distortions & Fabrications Radically Alter History" by Ashley Rindsberg. In the introduction, Rindsberg writes, "The seed for this book was planted when I stumbled across a footnote in a work of history about the Second World War, William Shirer's famed THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH. In the footnote, Shirer mentioned, almost casually, that on the eve of the outbreak of the Second World War, the New York Times reported that Poland had invaded Germany. ... It stopped me in my tracks. How could the great American newspaper, whose standards for excellence are known around the world, have reported the very opposite of what we now consider to be an unassailable fact, an idea fundamental to our understanding of the war--that Germany invaded Poland as the opening salvo of Hitler's scheme to conquer Europe?" I have not read Shirer but did he believe Poland attacked Germany as the Times claimed, or did he assert it was the other way around? The irony is that the book you mention being not entirely accurate was a trigger for this author to find many evidences that the New York Times was not entirely accurate, and according to his view, deliberately misreported and even appears to have fabricated fact in ways that have manipulated world opinions away from the truth. There's a lot of axe-grinding in books these days, and this is no exception, but I have so far not discovered any egregious or blatantly incorrect evidences in Rindsberg's book. Wondering if you are familiar with it, and have any cautions.
Paradigm Gauge
2024-02-09 17:07:12 +0000 UTCThanks, this was very interesting as usual! I live in Germany and even here most people believe that the Nazis themselves were responsible for the fire in the Reichstag. These assumptions are defended so harshly that I myself was accused of defending what the Nazis did, just because I pointed out that evidence suggests they were not responsible for the fire. It's a very emotionally loaded topic and I think that might be the biggest factor why people seem to rather want to believe the most popular assumptions rather than what is most plausible, looking at the evidence we have. Personally, the time period around WW1 was always much more interesting to me compared to WW2, as to me it always seemed like WW1 laid much of the foundation of what would happen in the rest of the 20th century. And that period being a lot less discussed and featured in documentaries etc perhaps even further sparked my curiosity. If you're up for it, I would be very interested to hear more of your thoughts around WW1 and the Versailles treaty.
Lina
2024-02-05 15:31:20 +0000 UTCI have been wondering similarly about Will Durant's writings. In my years as a graduate and doctoral student in biblical and religious studies, he was rarely referenced, and I don't think I ever read him in my own research. The grand narrative style doesn't meet current historiographical standards, and surely historical knowledge has advanced since he wrote. But, sidestepping popularized works such as Durant's and the ones you mentioned, even academic work that meets current standards is riven with controversy and debate. I became discouraged with that when I was studying, and disillusionment related to it was one of the reasons I decided to drop out. I admire academics who are able to both maintain their integrity, to the extent possible, and not become discouraged in their profession without resorting to cynicism.
Tim Elston
2024-02-04 21:28:47 +0000 UTCVery insightful. A great reminder for us all to remain rigorously critical of all our sources — new, old, popular or not. Your consistent transparency in source citation and your persistent encouragment for others to engage with them directly are such important checks and balances for both creator and consumer. Another commentor (Nick Hare) made an excellent suggestion in doing a video explaining research standards in different fields but I’d like to expand on that suggestion of seeing what your key principles are when judging the validity of your sources and research. Challenging peoples’ assumptions is an understandably daunting endeavour. There can be a humanistic dread in heresy. But I’m optimistic, perhaps naive, in believing your audience is intellectually modest enough to listen in good faith. Especially if they use those checks and balances to critically decide for themselves.
Ashyka Chan
2024-02-03 00:20:35 +0000 UTCGreat presentation -- I love how personalized it feels. Myself as always hurriedly activist life does no meticulous research. But my memory of how unquenchable fire was in the Williams College Kappa Alpha house (formerly Procter Mansion, about 60 years old in the mid 1960's) easily convinced me that the Reichstag fire could have been VanDerLubbe alone. Personally, my favorite modern history tends to be in photograph-filled paperbacks or the larger format -- again photograph-filled -- Time-Life series. It is very loose style of thinking, where when I see your copied page recounting Rudolph Diels trying to talk sense to Hitler and Hitler talking paranoia about a vast fire conspiracy, the lone arsonist view seems real. And now, amidst horrors in Ukraine and super-horrors in Gaza, Wilson's demand for Article Ten to League-up the League against bad-guy nations, seems NOW worth a second look, far more than the 1919 embittering economics. If world can't solidly (militarily) stop Putin and Netanyahu, we're headed straight for a final finality, not of a world war, but a world of A Thousand And One Nights of 9/11's, and space aliens should be careful visiting the murdered dead planet -- but perhaps we'll be a useful warning to beings perhaps needing it.
Richard David Greene
2024-02-02 19:40:29 +0000 UTCNew record for thr “most sedate venting” in history. lol Natural tension between being close enough in time to be accurate/rely on primary sources vs perspective that comes with passage of time/closer to all the facts available. Could see a market for expert critiques of most well- known works - maybe “debunks” would be too harsh of a term. Call it 20/20 hindsight analyses so authors concede their advantage over the original authors rather than presenting as the ‘gotcha’ police.
brett rowland
2024-02-02 16:12:26 +0000 UTCWow, Ryan! I have read every one of the books you talked about! I am not enough of a scholar to discern all the shortcomings, but at the time I read the books, I did realize that there were problems. Thank you!
Michael
2024-02-02 13:41:36 +0000 UTCDebunking is not an unpopular format on the internet so I think there is room for debunking video of popular (but wrong) history books. Thanks for sharing, I actually believed that the Nazis were behind the Reichstag fire so very useful video.
Nicolas Salliou
2024-02-02 07:39:39 +0000 UTCYes, challenging widely-held beliefs because they have led to erroneous assumptions is a tall order. You’re trying to explain a better understanding vs. to alienate your audience—which is commendable, and may click with some. More power to you, Ryan, and thank you.
Esther Burke
2024-02-02 06:38:23 +0000 UTCGreat video. I think your scrupulously neutral and source-focused approach would suit a video about what 'research standards' look like in different fields. In the 'harder' social sciences like economics or psychology, generally research isn't considered publishable unless you have an empirical dataset, even if the findings seem obviously true. At the softer end (fields ending in 'studies'), there is more of an emphasis on personal experience (case studies, self-reported surveys etc.) to get insights into topics where there is no data, and there is less emphasis on methodology. I think it would be interesting to examine this culture difference from a documentary standpoint. What do the practitioners say about what they consider acceptable methods, or signifiers of good and bad research, and what do they consider the benefits and limitations to be?
Nick Hare
2024-02-02 06:27:17 +0000 UTC
