Thoughts about Research
Don’t get me wrong! I am all for good solid research. I am all for backing up your own opinions with established facts and others opinions that are more credible than your own. However, there is a lot more to intelligence than doing research. Think about it, when you cite a source what you are doing is citing someone else’s original thought. Why not skip that step and come up with your own original thoughts?
I am a very original thinker. I would rather write a 15 page paper straight out of my head than write a 5 page research paper. I’d rather write a dozen songs than learn to play one already written. I like to come up with ideas, I like to think of new things, I like to invent, and I like to mentally “explore.” Personally, I value being able to process information and come to my own conclusions more than I value looking something up to see if anybody else thought of the same thing. I like to ask questions, I like to find answers, I like to speculate on answers, I like to wonder about things that can have no rational answer.
Here is another thing. I am certainly not the authority on this, but there is more to good solid research than slapping a citation on the end of a paragraph or quoting somebody. There are billions of people in the world and most of them are entirely insane. Anybody can publish anything, but that doesn’t make it right. You can find books, websites, and quotes to support any position you can dream up. That’s not to say that research is not valid, I’m just saying that it can be distorted and crappy sources can be taken advantage of.
To be sure, there is a place for research, but it's not in my busy life right now. I thoroughly enjoy reading well thought out, well reasoned, and well supported writings! I even enjoy writing these from time to time, but that's what I do in school.
So, in short, if people want to read finely cited works full or experts opinions, go for it! But you probably won’t be finding too many of them written by Ian – Band Member. That’s what the academic world is all about. I spend too much time in that world as it is. If you want to hear original and speculative thoughts or perhaps “Random musings from the rock group the Look Machine” than you are in the right place.
28 Comments:
It depends on what you're talking about. When it comes to religion and philosphy and all that jazz, it's entirely possible for someone to hypothesize all day long without quoting or citing another source. But when you're talking about physical things, you have to use specifics to back up your argument. And those need to come from a definitive source that probably isn't you.
For example, if you say drilling in Alaska is bad, well, who says? You? What do you know about Alaska, drilling for oil or how the process works? Have you talked with government officials about what exactly they want to do, where and how? How do you know the animals aren't actually running low on oil and are forced to walk to work instead of taking their SUVs? I personally don't have strong feelings about that issue, which is why I'm using it as an example.
So yeah, original thought is awesome. But you just can't convince people of some things without some backup info.
I don't even remember exactly what you were talking about, but I wrote all this stuff and I'm just going to post it and hope it makes sense.
Sorry for being all serious. To make it up, I'll tell a joke.
One day, a guy walks into a bar. Another guy walks into the bar and the first guy says "yeah, I didn't see it either."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
It's 4 a.m.
Time for Snake Man to go to work.
And no, he's not kidding.
Here is a thought about research.
I don't think that it is good "research" to have a preconceived idea or an agenda to prove and then find other people to back you up. That seams to happen a lot on this blog (and even in academia). THAT IS NOT RESEARCH!!! That is being opinionated and then trying to validate your point of view by citing other people with the same opinions.
Good reserch should involve looking into facts, making observations about something, considering other peoples' opinions, AND doing your own original thinking to come up with an explanation or idea about something. However, it should be done in that order. If you do the reverse and just try to support what you already believe, you are a a bigot. You can ALWAYS find support for your ideas no matter how crazy they are. Some people try to act like they have done research, but really they are just citing other people who think similarly. once again... that is not research. You should know the difference and not be fooled.
Snake man, I totally agree with you! You are absolutely right in what you said. You can't go and have "original thought" about something that should be based on facts, you do need to do your research and learn all about it. (which I did do for alaska by the way, but I didn't use citations so I lost some credibility)
Collin, good points! That was precisely what I was trying to comunicate in my post, but you did a much better job in one paragraph!
Or should I say two paragraphs...
Think about it, when you cite a source what you are doing is citing someone else’s original thought. Why not skip that step and come up with your own original thought?
I know you don't want any philosiphizing but I just have a few questions. Is there really any original thought? What is the source of your "original thought"? You have to be careful in thinking that you are an original thinker, it smacks of humanism.
You sound like you don't think very highly of humanistic thinking. Humans are very awesome creatures that have unique capabilities.
Original thinking? Sure. If you can't think originally that is too bad. Originality and creativity are 2 of humanity's greatist traits. I am guessing by your comment that you are a christian (based on your tone towards humanism). Don't forget that the bible says we are created in the image of God. God is a pretty creative and original fellow. By the transitive property, we are too. That is a good thing.
Also... to clarify.
I love original thinking and I do a lot of it. I think that everyone should exercise their ability to think creatively and originally. I only gave some thoughts on research to clarify a few things. If you are going to go around claiming to have researched things, your research should be able to meet some basic standards. Also you should be wary of believing someone because they claim to "have good research." You should know what "good research" is an hold people to that standard. Quoting a bunch of online sources and second graders' websites to prove a point you were already trying to make is not by any streach of the imagination "good research."
Granted, "there is nothing new under the sun" but there are new ways for me to look at things and I can do my own original thinking.
Yay!!! Swing dancing tonight in Philly!!!!!!!
Ian, that was a wonderful post. I totally agree with your points on the pollution of the environment. Keep defending the precious wilderness acreage.
Ian wrote:
"Personally, I value being able to process information and come to my own conclusions more than I value looking something up to see if anybody else thought of the same thing. I like to ask questions, I like to find answers, I like to speculate on answers, I like to wonder about things that can have no rational answer."
Coming to your own conclusions is fine (as long as they are consistent with God's word). But you seem to take pride in the fact that you can figure out things better than anybody else that has ever thought about them. Trying to figure things out on your own without giving weight to what others (who may actually know more than you do) have said or thought can lead to some very mushy, touchy feely thinking that falls apart when it is scrutinized with the Truth. Also, I think you are confusing creative thinking and creativity, both of which are gifts which God delights in, with "original thought". It seems to me that your "original thought" is an excuse to dismiss or disparage things that you don't feeeel are right or don't jibe with your world view. Be careful with all of your "original thinking" that it doesn't drown out the Truth of the Original Thinker.
Are you a human, NoNym?
yeah, original thought is nice but it won't get you very far. i can write a 15 page paper all out of my head but what good would it be, unless you just wanted to try to figure out how my mind works (if it does...). otherwise, all it will offer is a personal opinion on some topic. essentially all i'm saying is you can't convey fact or truth by jotting down an original thought. first you have to find out what the truth is.
and sure, if you run a search online you can come up with 'research' to support practically anything... but just because some nerdy kid can post a site online doesn't make it credible. the whole point of research is gaining credibility, no? thus we look for people who have done their own research, experimentation, observation, whatever. if i quote something about math and credit it to einstein, then you can believe it's pretty accurate. i don't have to go looking for someone who disagrees and put what he said too. i don't know about anybody else, but if i have to do research, i don't look for information that contradicts what i'm trying to prove. that would be pretty counterproductive. i look for credible sources that support my ideas. my point: looking for sources that back up your ideas is not wrong, given that they are credible sources.
Good points. Think about this though.
What about when you are having a conversation, like a real one in person, and you are debating stuff. Well you aren't going to be like "Hang on, let me go google this Idea to see if Einstein thought of it too." You need to be able to think on your feet, your own original thought. Sure, you should draw on things you already know, but you have to be able come up with new material. It should be logical, but spontaneous.
How about when you are walking down the street in another country and you see something puzzeling. You don't have the encyclopedia Britannica (which researchers seem to hate for no good reason) to look it up. You aren't online. You ask yourself, you think of the most plausable explanation and you file it away in your list of interesting theories. You can't be dogmatic about it, but it's good to be able to have ideas about the world around you.
I'm not saying there is no place for research. I'm just saying that original thought is valid and valuable. If you don't practice it then you are going to be in trouble when you need to use it.
If you only look for sources to support and validate what you believe, you will never grow or change as a person. You will just go around thinking the same things and being closed minded. I personally am a seeker of truth. Truth can't be found by only trying to find support for what you already think is true.
For example, if I thought it was true that the earth is flat and I wanted to validate that, I could cite hundreds of sources to back myself up. Did you know that there is a "flat earth society?" They have bunches of sophisticated sounding writings that delineate their theory. Of course, I think it is rediculous to believe in a flat earth, but if I did believe it was flat, I could spend a lifetime quoting other sources who think it is flat and who can provide "scientific research" that "proves" that the earth is flat. I would never learn the truth.
"Researching" without being open to change blinds you to possible truths.
"Sure, you should draw on things you already know, but you have to be able come up with new material. It should be logical, but spontaneous."
New material? In order for that to be logical don't you have to do research and be very knowledgable about the topic? I wouldn't trust some of my spontaneous thinking to be in line with Biblical thinking - because as a human in my spontinuity I would probably go with my feelings, which are not dependable, rather than God's word. So as I study God's word, and learn more about topics through research, eventually I will be able to have random conversations and be able to back them up spur of the moment with my accumulated knowledge - which will do the greater good to the person I am having the conversation with. College is supposed to gear you towards thinking on your own, but I think it also is a time where we need to be researching and learning the truth so we can come up with valid opinions. I'd rather fill my head with tried and true thinking (from the Bible, from facts, and from those who are smarter than I am) to guide my thinking rather than trust my own flippant original thoughts.
I'm not sure what I think about openmindedness - all I have to say is be very careful and don't depend on yourself alone to be able to determine Truth.
-Rachel
Rachel, let me know when you know all about everything and we'll have a random conversation about it.
I think that you have admirable intentions and good ideas. It is totally necessary to establish a foundation of core beliefs for your life! I agree with you that the Bible is the standard for absolute truth. You have to realize, however, that a lot of knowledge is not contained in the Bible. The Bible didn't tell people how to make cars or cure small pox.
I think that we should be original thinkers. One of the things that sets humans apart from other animals and computers is abstract reasoning. God didn't make out brains giant hard drives that should memorize tons of facts then spit them out whener we are having a discussion. He made people reasonalbe and creative. We are made in the image of God and should learn from his creativity.
The people you cite when you research were original thinkers. Albert Enstein didn't just quote other people. He went out there and figured stuff out and now we can quote him. Gandhi was an original thinker and his ideas, put into practice, freed the Indian Sub-continent. Let's not forget good old Martin Luther. Where would you be without him? He didn't believe what he was always told, he thought and reasoned and came to conclusions that changed history. How about Guttenburg (I should research the spelling of his name). Without him we woulnd't have books to be reading in. The world was built by original thinkers. Immagine if you had been alive in Martin Luther's day. You would have told him, "don't have an open mind! that's humanistic. You need to believe what you always learned in church." Just like everyone else was telling him.
Don't just believe what you have always been told. You have to make those beliefs your own! You should allow yourself to question sometimes, and come to conclusions. I think that an omnipotent God can handle a question or two from you!
i can see what you mean concerning the importance of original thought, walking down a street or having a face to face debate allows no opportunity for research. but the topic doesn't even apply. why talk about whether research is a good thing in a context where it is impossible? but ok, i'll bite. say you are having a debate and you need to think on your feet. how are you going to be able to argue your position clearly and effectively unless you know the subject? you can't know a subject just by original thought. you can hypothesize about it, but that gets you nowhere as far as debating goes. to support your arguments you need to present evidence. that evidence has to come from somewhere. if you're arguing a topic you've researched, you're likely to do better than if it's something you haven't. unless maybe you're debating something completely abstract, not grounded in fact at all. also, to present an original thought as you would a researched position would be misleading. in doing so, you are attributing credibility to something that may be completely erroneous. don't get me wrong...every scientific law started as a thought. chances are, however, not many put any faith in them until they were proven.
"For example, if I thought it was true that the earth is flat and I wanted to validate that, I could cite hundreds of sources to back myself up. Did you know that there is a "flat earth society?" They have bunches of sophisticated sounding writings that delineate their theory."
that's very nice. however, consider again what i wrote before: "my point: looking for sources that back up your ideas is not wrong, given that they are credible sources." just because you can find a bunch of people that present evidence of a flat earth does not make it a credible source. all i have to do is look at a picture of the earth from space to see that it is not flat. people have sat in spaceships and orbited all the way around the globe. that's about as hard evidence as you can get. here's my other point: if i'm researching for a paper about the earth and it's semi-spherical shape, i'm not going to go looking for a 'flat earth society' that wants to disprove me. it's a pointless exercise and doesn't do anything for my paper. my purpose in the paper is to prove a point. if someone else wants to disprove it, then good for them, they can help themselves. i'm not going to try and disprove my beliefs just so that i can be 'open to change.'
(of course this brings up the whole thing about 'if you don't question it, you don't care about it.' but that's another subject.)
Good points. Here is my point. Research is valuable, but you need to be able to think for yourself too. There is a time for research, there is a time for free thought.
"This is not a black and white world."
"It's sort of grayish, with a hint of blue."
You got it snakey. Lots of grey with some surprises thrown in.
Kind of like apple cinnamon oatmeal. Just when you think it's all greyish-brown mush, SURPRISE! Pieces of apple show up.
Mmmmm...
Man, I love that stuff.
Naked.
Post a Comment
<< Home