CMV: Actually, you shouldn't do your own research. That's called being an amateur.

Hey there. Host of a popular science/tech podcast here. I'm here today to tell you that you're doing science and information gathering all wrong. I'm not here to persuade you to become an expert in a specific domain. Just to shift your perspective on how to approach information about basically anything. I'll use an example to make things more clear. <br><br>In this video, you will see a medical doctor and a biologist debate a well known anti-vaxxer, and lose. The anti-vaxxer is better at using data than they are, and he uses that to his advantage by finding flaws in how the doctors use data, and thus, to discredit them.<br><br>The doctors are in the position that they have the burden of proof. Since they are advocating for the status quo (vaccines), they need to prove that they are safe, while the anti-vaxxer only has to prove that they are not. <br><br>The doctors fail to prove that vaccines are safe, because the anti-vaxxer shows that they are cherry picking data, and that their data is flawed. <br><br>The anti-vaxxer easily wins this debate, even though he is wrong, and the doctors are right. They are wrong, because the scientific consensus is that vaccines are safe. The doctors are right, because vaccines are safe. The anti-vaxxer wins the debate because he is better at using data. This is a huge problem. This is a huge problem not only for vaccination, but for basically any domain of Science outside of Maybe high energy physics. <br><br>This is a problem because experts are not taught how to argue in front of a large crowd. They are taught to do good science, and to argue with other experts in the field. Arguing with the layman is not in their job description. If you ask a layman, however, if they can do science, they will not only say that they can, but that you can too! Just do your own research. <br><br>And this is what you do. At least once in your life, you've read a study to back up your political, scientific, medical, philosophical, etc position, without knowing anything about that subject, and thought yourself an expert in that domain, capable of debating other experts. <br><br>But you aren't. After all, how would you know if you are? You are no expert in that domain. You can't do your own research because you don't know how, and you don't know how because you need to do your own research first. It's a Catch-22 situation. You need to do your own research to know how to do your own research.<br><br>And this is why anti-vaxxers win debates against doctors. <br><br>The solution is not to do your own research, but to relay more on evidence, and experts, and to trust the scientific consensus, because it's the only way that we can know anything. <br><br>* The scientific consensus is literally the closest thing we have to the truth of a subject. <br><br>* Evidence is basically data, plus experts. It’s the rawest, most unbiased form of data that experts have compiled to support a claim. <br><br>The scientific consensus is what everyone in a scientific community agrees on. And the scientific consensus is the closest thing we have to the truth of a subject. Don't trust experts. They can be bought, or they can be biased. Don't even trust evidence. Evidence can be flawed, or biased. But when the scientific consensus is behind something, it's the closest to the truth that you can get. In a previous video, I've shown you how science works. In this video, I'm going to show you how you should approach information that you don't know anything about. <br><br>Step 1 is to research the subject. But, as I've said, you can't really do your own research. So what you do is research what the consensus is. <br><br>Step 2 is look for the evidence behind the claim you are researching. Evidence is basically data, plus experts. It’s the rawest, most unbiased form of data that experts have compiled to support a claim. <br><br>For example, let's say you're trying to lose weight. You need to know what kinds of alcohols have the fewest calories. <br><br>In this case, the scientific consensus is that the amount of calories in an alcohol is determined by how long it is distilled for. Wine and beer are distilled for the shortest amounts of time, and thus, have the most calories. Vodka and whiskey are the most distilled, and thus, have the fewest calories. <br><br>The evidence to back this up is very simple. An alcohol is measured by its % of alcohol by volume (ABV). If you want to know how many calories something has, you multiply its ABV by 7.57 (I think it's 7.57, I can't remember now). So the higher an alcohol's ABV, the more calories it has. <br><br>If you are using evidence, you would take the consensus and evidence into account, and you would see that wine and beer are the most caloric alcohols because they have the lowest ABV, followed by all other liquors. <br><br>Step 3, is to use your critical thinking skills, and your knowledge of the world to see if the consensus and evidence make sense. If it doesn't, then you should probably abandon the claim. If it does, it probably doesn't need anymore work from you. <br><br>In this case, we know that when you distill an alcohol longer, you get more ABV, which means that you get fewer calories. Wine and beer are less distilled than liquor, so according to the evidence, they should have fewer calories. The evidence and consensus seem to make sense here. <br><br>So in conclusion, I know it might seem counterintuitive to say that you shouldn't do your own research. But, in reality, you shouldn't do your own research. That's called being an amateur. Instead, you should relay more on evidence, and experts, and to trust the scientific consensus, because it's the only way that we can know anything. <br><br>This is Luxurix, and I'll see you in the next video.