Perhaps you've noticed that nutritional studies and expert advice change on a regular basis.

When I was a teacher, we made a U-turn in educational philosophy about every six years. We would learn the "truth" about how children learn and would receive intense training on how to implement the new data, then six years later we'd be told we were wrong to have believed any of it, and we had to take on the opposite point of view with new materials, new kinds of lesson plans, new testing, and new teacher evaluation emphasis.

For example I started teaching and learned that most teachers favored girls. A few years later I learned that new research proved that most teachers like boys better. This switched about every six to ten years. In truth I never favored one gender over the other and don't think that most teachers were so biased. But we had to prove we used tactics of management that didn't exhibit such a bias. We had to have kids line up in alternate ways which in fact reflected the actual bias of those who did the studies.

These experiences taught me not to assume that research is a gold standard reflection of reality. I think it's a good idea to use independent observation and critical thinking to assess issues and situations.

Look at the data. Listen to others, but don't assume any of that is the one true and valid opinion on the face of the earth.

Yes. Exactly. Bravo.

And well said.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look at the data. Listen to others, but don't
> assume any of that is the one true and valid
> opinion on the face of the earth.

Like.

Agreed ! Thank you for your post.

Was told years ago

"Statistics don't equal learning

Learning doesn' equal knowledge

Knowledge doesn't equal intelligence

Intelligence doesn't equal wisdom. "

There is a lot of very poor quality research which is just statistic gathering,which then drives these changes in so many areas And don't get me stated on selective research done to shore up a predetermined opinion. BOM archaeology anyone?

I think that you have to look at the quality of the research. For whatever reason, IMO the field of education gets a lot of rubbish research.

I don't think I've ever seen a period of time when administrators and researchers have been more out of touch with what goes on in an average classroom.

I've also learned that medical research can be bogus which is alarming and dangerous. There are "researches who write proposals and get donations to study worthless failed or minimally helpful drugs and devices which cost millions and do little or nothing to help patients and can sometimes do very serious harm.

Who is the target of this veiled post, Cheryl?

Every.week.

With their recovery and in many life situations.

Ah yes . . . "The Blind Men's Institute of Elephantine Studies."

LOL!

Yup.

Often, a link, study or expert opinion is cited with the expectation that other posters should swallow it whole. This negates the reality that there could be be others studies, links, or experts which disagree with the argument or the majority opinion in a thread.

For years, posters berated me for not providing links to prove points. They said there's no shunning in the mormon church unless there's a link which states that fact. They said mormons don't harass those who leave their church. They said I wore a tin hat for stating my experiences unless I would provide studies and expert opinions to back up my observations.

The point of this thread? We don't have to swallow anything whole. We can use our own experience and logic to decide what positions we'll take on issues.

There's no rule that forces us to believe that the thinking has been done based on links, studies, or what someone considers to be expert opinion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2018 05:58AM by Cheryl.

Another thing I think is useful is to notice the implications for ideology or morality or politics. But alot of research is on things where the findings don't have any ideological implications, if some star uses this particular mechanism to shine vs that method it doesn't matter to us except the potential technology it might or might not unlock 20 years down the road. If some toad species only mates with close relatives, despite most species generally avoiding incest, it doesn't have any particular political or moral implications e.t.c.

But then you get to the studies of things where all findings have political or social or moral or ideological implications. Obviously, with hidden agendas in all directions behind every freaking study obviously you need to take it with much more grain of salt.

And finally we have the problem some fields have where you know adequate study would be both deeply immoral and hugely impractical. For example, we would know so much more about medical and social and psychological stuff with much more detail and certainty, like the impact of diet upon human health for example, if we could raise people , preferrably big groups of clones, in enclosed little test-tubes and be free to constantly watch their every move, mess with them in all kinds of ways and even kill these test-persons whenever circumstances dictated it. But we can't do that, so there's no way to be really sure if you got cancer from eating red meat or some other thing, because we can't check your every move and make sure no other potential cancer-cause came in your way for 20 years nor be certain when we compare you to a test-person that doesn't eat red meat that the only thing that differs between you is the read meat thing e.t.c.

This is why particle physics is way more reliable than diet advice, we are free, and indeed we routinely do subject particles to every kind of manipulation and observation we are capable of doing, we don't have to ask the particles permission, there's humoungus numbers of them which makes the statistics way more reliable, they are from what we can tell perfect clones of one another, and for the most part finding out that the higgs boson was a bit heavier than expected for example, didn't really have any ideological impact on anyone except maybe Deepak Chopra.

My mother who taught first grade for 44 years said the same thing, Cheryl.Her opinion was that different reading systems work better for each individual child, and no one system works for all. Same for math. You have to teach to what works for each kid, not some "magic" system.

If I want your opinion I'll give it to you.

"Look at the data. Listen to others, but don't assume any of that is the one true and valid opinion on the face of the earth."

COMMENT: I question this statement on two grounds. First, it assumes that research papers can loosely be assessed as opinions, rather than as arguments for real conclusions that represent the way the world actually is. Second, it strikes me as a bit too close to a post-modernist assumption that there can be no truth-value assessment of someone's opinions.

We are not powerless to evaluate the validity of a paper that is not within are own particular field of expertise. We can--if we are willing to do a bit of "homework"--evaluate the facts and logic of a paper, and often make a reasonable assessment as to whether the facts presented are sufficiently established, or otherwise represent merely the weak and poorly established assumptions of the writer. Inferences depend upon well-established logical and mathematical principles. The conclusion either follows, or it doesn't, whether it is presented as a deductive conclusion, a probability assessment, or a claim of "best explanation."

Opinions are just opinions, but the arguments of research papers are either successful or not, depending upon what is written. If all the writer intends to do is express his or her opinion, without making a rational argument as to why that opinion is correct, it is not a research paper; it is mere rhetoric. A research paper that leaves the honest and attentive reader thinking, "that is just your opinion," has failed. However, we need to be careful in mistakenly thinking that the failure is in the paper, rather than in the rigidity of our own deeply entrenched prior convictions.

"Studies, links, research, expert opinion? They're not the end of the world."

Absolutely true.

Studies, links, research, expert opinion are much closer to the "beginning of the world," or the "beginning of the search for truth," at least for people with a sincere interest in learning about what is true.

Willful disregard for the work of others is willful ignorance.

Many exmos do end up doing extensive reading on early mormon history and sometimes they take time to compare and contrast scripture and note changes in church policy and doctrine.

Some exmos say they give up normal activities and read with a focused determination for days and weeks as they leave the mormon church.

I had been out for decades when I found RfM. I thought I knew all its dirtiest secrets having grown up in a polygamy compound. Nope, I knew much of the hidden evils but I had much more to learn

Overall, if someone asks a question on any topic of mormonism and recovery, they receive instant and very generous and kind feedback to help them in their quest.

Off topic subjects don't count because that isn't what RfM is about. Those topics don't need to be studied in depth unless someone wants to take them to a more appropriate forum, as RfM centers on support and recovery interactions, not grinding out or haggling over hard nosed research.

"Off topic subjects don't count because that isn't what RfM is about. Those topics don't need to be studied in depth unless someone wants to take them to a more appropriate forum, as RfM centers on support and recovery interactions, not grinding out or haggling over hard nosed research."

COMMENT: When someone leaves Mormonism their entire worldview is rocked. Reevaluating and reconstructing one's belief system in a rational way involves consideration of a wide breadth of topics and issues that are not directly related to Mormonism and its doctrines. That is why you find many such topics discussed on the Board. Moreover, "haggling over hard nosed research" is a healthy part of this effort.

Each person has a right to study whatever they choose and they still have a right to discuss them on whatever level they deem right for them.

You nor I have a right to tell them they can't discuss topics until and unless they measure up to a certain level of expertise.

It isn't up to RfM to provide for every topic that happens to come up in the news or in the heads of certain posters.

Once they do occur, it isn't anyone's right to claim they are the one true and only authority who must dictate conclusions because of a slanted link or two.

So your post is about guns and gun control? Why didn't you say so?

Carameldreams was right.

Yes, ma'am.

All research and opinion come with an automatic disclaimer that they are "what we know at this time" with the caveat that perhaps there is more to know on the same subject that has not yet been revealed or unearthed and that yet unknown information could change everything. My conclusion is to consider all information and then go with my gut. There is a "crap shoot" element to life.

Having that attitude regarding "established fact" is what got many of us Exmos out of the Mormon church in the first place I dare say. That is also the attitude that keeps apologists saying, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Questioning fact and study is a two edge sword apparently.

I notice the flaw with expert studies just from reading the paper. First coffee/eggs/wine/et al is bad for you. Then it is good for you. Then it depends. Then two studies conflict. I kept enjoying all three.

Then I found a study that showed heart problems increased with the decrease of the use of lard. Apparently much less heart disease the first half of the last century. Hmmmnnnn. Good statistics to back it up. I did not start eating lard again. (We always had a can by the stove when I was a kid.)

Good post Cheryl.

Apparently Done & Done, we read Cheryl's post wrong. It isn't about what her first sentence says it's about at all, no, it's about gun control.

And her point is something other than emphasizing the value of personal experience when assessing new teaching methods and nutritional methods.

(And as far as extrapolating from this point to other domains of research, I take brefots point, with the caveat that where there are millions or billions of research dollars at stake, there will inevitably be oxen and goring going on.)

My inability to pay close attention to RfM is showing...

(By the way, go with the lard...saturated fats are good for you...or so my experience is proving...)

Human

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Apparently Done & Done, we read Cheryl's post
> wrong. It isn't about what her first sentence
> says it's about at all, no, it's about gun
> control.

You don’t say!

My wife taught for three years, but that wasn't long enough for her to see many trends and approaches come and go.

My mom taught from the time she finished college until her first child was born and remained certified to substitute teach in whatever state our family resided. She went back to teaching full-time when I started college. She taught math and theater at the high school level when she taught full-time, so she wasn't subjected to quite the sweeping change that a self-contained classroom teacher typically faces. Still, when she was substitute teaching while I was in high school, she was amazed to discover that a local school district had adopted a program called Reading Mastery. When she opened the teacher's manual, she discovered it was verbatim from the old Distar series that had been thoroughly vilified in the 1980s when the whole language movement came into vogue.

If a teacher hangs around long enough, he or she sees things come, then go, then come back again with a different name and cover.

I was forced to use it for a couple of years and hated it! It proves that kids can learn no matter if they have a bad program with nasty people running their poor teachers to distraction.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was forced to use it for a couple of years and
> hated it! It proves that kids can learn no matter
> if they have a bad program with nasty people
> running their poor teachers to distraction.

My wife says a reasonably bright kid with no pronounced learning disabilities could probably learn to read using telephone books (if we still had them) as the only text, but why would a person choose to teach that way? Ditto with regard to Distar.

My mom was especially bothered because the district off ice language arts specialist who was forcing the Reading mastery (AKA Distar with a new cover on the teacher's manual) was one of the early whole language nut cases (not everyone who used whole language methods was a nut case, obviously, and the movement had some strong points, but the woman of whom I write essentially thought her fingers would necrotize if she as much as touched a basal reader). Now she's forcing K-2 teachers to use Distar with their entire classes- even students who are reading significantly above grade level. Extreme people are going to go to extremes in whatever ideology they embrace, which is why, in my opinion, it's a bad idea to put such people in leadership positions.

Studies have shown that 76.5% of statistics are completely random and made up, including this one.

When Mormon catch 22s, Mormon contradictions, Mormon injustice historically and modern injustice generated anxiety,

Ex Mormon stories - incredulous joy that , I was not alone, after all.

Research excerpts and such utilizing quest is online library opened my mind until I was able to attempt to even read, EX Mormon tales on the internet

The issue is the question. What is the question generated by Mormon injustice, Mormon contradictions, Mormon catch 22s, .... Just as Mormon dogma Mormon public relations purchases hid history if unsavory... poorly analyzed or partially sourced excerpts from research can be <used> to make any point, as can poor research sampling not pertinent to the subject addressed/ yields misleading data artifacts. So. Just as we learned to address Mormon misleading variables, so we could be misled by misquoted or agenda funded research.

Research studies do a flat black and white photographs. Some are digital 16 megapixel vs oth er studies use a 5 megapixel camera photo shot at an instant of data set. Others aim the camers making wide open shots in their reseach, while other studies utilize narrow close up isolated focus such as microphotography getting glistening dew on a tip of a blade o f grass and th at is tge picture of the entire study its so focused. Some studies select a seeminly random collage of data photo s while others appear like photo essays giving examples of a type, while others utilize time lapse photography in data sets, still others almost photograph similar but related photograohs like a photo album approach to data set analysis.

looking for another truth, a specific singular truth, looking at the resear hers csnnera sets of various data sets is as clear or confusing as noting art photography as news hisyyory, instead of a complex changing relative data set analysis.
Myriad photos relative truth instead of an instant true photo to worship. <Oh most holy one a felted a authorized holy data set phrased paraphrased and translated analyzed according to.prophetic and divine authority an authorized logic set! S e l a h I will come worship you>