How do I search for sources and studies?

[Anonymous No.14736691]

Where do I search for them in order to know more about a subject or my own knowledge, and how to know if the study is accurate or just propaganda from the studies patron?

[Anonymous No.14736695]

>>14736691
>how to know if the study is accurate or just propaganda from the studies patron?
Is the study published in a peer-reviewed reputable journal or on the website of a lobby organisation? If it's not bleeding edge research, but a couple years old, did the result make it into textbooks or is it some fringe theory that's largely ignored by the field?

[Anonymous No.14736697]

>>14736695
Also, if you're not a total noob, you can evaluate their methods even if you're not an expert in the field itself. Did they do proper analysis? Did they consider that the result might be spurious? Is it a controlled study?

[Anonymous No.14736702]

>>14736691
The studies generally post the sources along with the conclusions of their study, it kind of depends though, in some cases you might actually need to contact the researchers and see the whole thing from yourself.

[Anonymous No.14736703]

>>14736695
Aren't just most reputable organizations just bullshit that showed corruption in the past? Are there any out here still trustworthy? Maybe they were in the past but it mutated into a corrupt organization?

Do you know some cases?
>>14736697
Do you have a n example of a good and a bad method?

[Anonymous No.14736739]

>>14736703
>Aren't just most reputable organizations just bullshit that showed corruption in the past?
No. The fact that most journals retracted some publications shows that they are willing to admit mistakes. The homeopathy journals that claim "everything we ever did is correct" are the ones that reek of misconduct.
>Are there any out here still trustworthy? Maybe they were in the past but it mutated into a corrupt organization?
Define "corrupt". What makes you believe they are? Like, if I had enough money, could I just publish whatever?
>good and a bad method
Really depends on the field, so I'm spitballing here.
Good method: Control groups, cross-checks, analyses that single out factors, large sample size, agreement with prior studies or explanation for disagreements.
Bad method: Common fallacies such as "post hoc ergo propter hoc", not explaining their models, extremely small sample sizes, bold claims building up on things that are known to be bullshit.
>since the crystal structure of water encapsulates the emotions and chakras infused into it...
This is obviously not comprehensive.

Some memorable example: there was an Indian study on nuclear fusion. They had like 10 curves and the noise pattern was exactly the same in all of them. Pretty obvious that's fake. There are regular Chinese semiconductor and battery studies with extreme claims. If they build a battery that suddenly has a capacity that's 1000 times higher than current batteries, then it's likely as fake as the 128TB micro SD cards on AliExpress.
Oh, affiliation is also a good indicator. An MIT paper has a much lower chance to be fake and gay than something from the evangelical liberal arts university in Bumfuck KY.

[Anonymous No.14736740]

>>14736691
just email the researcher. they are happy to share their work to fuck over the journals.

[Anonymous No.14736929]

>>14736697
Kek this is retarded and the reason we have a replication crisis in the first place
Peer review is exactly what you're suggesting and that is why there is a problem. The "does it more or less make sense" approach is so stupid that you should probably kys for suggesting it

[Anonymous No.14736932]

>>14736739
Fuck off Elsevier shill. Nobody in my university likes them, why the fuck are you making excuses for them? They're a bunch of crooks who get rich off the effort of thousands of researchers who are too meek and gay to do anything about it.
Imagine fucking writing a book on 4chan defending Elsevier god damn it neck yourself

[Anonymous No.14736999]

>>14736691
use google scholar

[Anonymous No.14737815]

>>14736739
Based and redpilled. Chinks, rednecks, pajeets, blacks, and hillbillies btfod. Science always was and always will be an activity for highly driven and motivated white men who come from affluent and educated socioeconomics backgrounds. Can can expected a monkey brained shitskin, or a lazy trailer trash hillbilly on welfare to be able to do proper science. Only the well bred and those with manners and class can contribute to science.obviously anons like yourself are the best example of this. Well bred. Well educated. Well mannered. In short, educated, centre-left neoliberal WASP elites. This is why Chinks, Russians, niggers, and muslims will never be able to properly contributed to science.

America is no. 1 for a reason.

[Anonymous No.14737885]

>>14736691
buy books they have all the studies digested, the author read the papers for you. You can always check the book references

[Anonymous No.14739446]

>>14736691
they are all propaganda and lies. scientists who contradict the propaganda and lies are "canceled" by the peer review system.

[Anonymous No.14739452]

>>14736932
>Elsevier shill
I take that personally, as I hate them with a passion. Sci-hub ftw.
But their financial system wasn't the question and these days we have to publish everything with open access anyway. However, as scammy as the are, a paper published in an Elsevier journal is 1000 times more trustable than in journal of applied homeopathy.

[Anonymous No.14739465]

>>14736691
ask from variety of sources