Ontology – Study of existence, truth and facts, what you know
Scientific experimentation and inductive
Epistemology – Methodology, how do you know something is true
Rationality and deduction
Ontology leads to Epistemology, which leads to methodology.
Methodology – How you enact research
Richard McElreath Analysis of Data – Small world problem. The problems of analysing data within a small scope, reducing the amount of evaluation and complete understanding. You can only analyse what you’ve actually tested, not anything beyond that of the potential affects outside of the tested area(s).
Should always keep in mind the larger world and how it’s outside the small world of the study and its consequences.
You don’t always know what you don’t know – There can be ‘blind spots’ in your view of the larger world which could affect the conclusion of your research. Openness can be helpful, and especially when it comes to being argued against as it can show potential flaws or mistakes in the research, It’s better that the research is accurate and considers all angles than for you to be ‘right’, and compromise the value of the research.
Hierarchy of conscience/competence.
Shows how much a person understands a subject, and their awareness of their understanding. It’s generally divided into two groups for two areas – Right and wrong, and conscious and unconscious.
Unconscious thinking is considered intuition, or an opinion/understanding which is attained without thorough investigation of a subject. Intuitive thought isn’t necessarily wrong despite the lack of conscious research, but it does make it more unreliable as a source.
Conscious thinking is when the person has done research of a subject on some level, which also doesn’t necessarily make the person right.
Right/wrong determines whether the persons understanding is considered correct – Someone can intuitively have an accurate understanding of a subject without having put conscious effort into understanding it, while someone could also consciously have researched a subject and come to an inaccurate understanding of it, such as by misinterpreting information or using poor sources (eg, opinionated rather than objective sources) for their research.
Our senses are limited and not flawless
Eg, the meaning of words lead to a rational understanding of that word, without needing proof of that meaning
Memories are stored all over the brain, not just in one place, and add together to form the one memory.
Is reality actually real, or is it just an approximation of what our senses are capable or comprehending? Your mind limits your understanding, as no matter how advanced technology is your own mind is still what determines your understanding. The Phaneron world is the idea that the world we understand is a different one to the realism. Realism is the idea that the world will continue to exist outside of a person’s own phaneron, even if we don’t know or understand everything outside the phaneron.
Sources of Information
Scale of Unmoderated/untrustworthy — Trustworthy
Eg, Wikipedia itself is a sliding scale as anyone can edit the information on the site, so the information reliability and actual source can be anyone/from anywhere on the internet. Some sources are viable, while others aren’t, but if you’re researching a subject it can be hard to determine which is which without finding correlating alternative sources. YouTube is a similarly dubious source, and depends more on the credentials and knowledge of the video than the site as a whole.
Blogs are generally more informal, making them less trustworthy than a book or site, die to the nature of the format and lack of viability. They generally use the writers own thought process, and not necessarily referenced facts.
Peer-reviewed Journals use multiple sources and outside views to determine the accuracy of the information within the journal (and are usually academic based).
Books tend to at least try being accurately informative
White papers are more commercially driven, and while it can be done well it can also be more aimed at proving what the client/founder wants to prove instead.
Some sites which themselves are bad will often have users who reference more trustworthy sources – It’s generally a better idea to go by these sources than to use the less viable site. Eg, many twitter posts can be accurate, but will likely also be referencing other sources of knowledge which are overall more viable.
The more formal the writing is, the more trustworthy the sources are required to be by default, and in some cases will need to be within a certain date to be considered relevant.
Be critical of the sources you use. Less trustworthy sources can be useful for ideas, but are poor choices as proof or sources for an argument.
Research journals use the same structure – Title, abstract (less than 500 words, why the research is important and what it found), introduction, what they did and how, results section, then conclusion/discussion. More recently the discussion is in the introduction and less about their own result.
Title, abstract and introduction are the important parts for our research.
Looking at papers which have since cited the first as a source can continue the discussion beyond just the one source.
Reliable data should be reproducible to be considered accurate and useful for research and as a foundation for an argument.