Dumbing down research

I cant say that I have had that problem, oranyone else I know[ but my sample would be small].
And I havent seen other people comment on it either.

But I am not saying it doesnt happen.
Perhaps it happens in some fields and not others as much?

You should hear DD on the subject of science reporting in the papers or on TV. What research did they do? How big was the sample? Where are the peer reviews? etc. etc. If you add the people who feel it HERE that something must be true to the mix she becomes incandescent

A fairly substantial amount of reported research on which a lot of fear/ hope is placed is proven incorrect within a short time. The insistence of universities on research by all students has led to some extremely poor and inaccurate finding being published and statistics being used to make a point often a false point. Such as it was found that up to 20% of people were found positive to.... Where it really means that 80% were ok.
Don't get me started. Rigorous research has largely disappeared to be replaced with convenient 'truth'.

That's the nature of Wikipedia. It's clearly marked with "citation required" or "this item is incomplete". DS was an editor for Wiki a few years back. They take it very seriously. On the whole it's pretty good.

The pick and mix the media puts out is a different matter.

I used to tell children not to trust Wiki and to try to source their information from more than one site.

Wiki is banned in a lot of secondary schools as it's often so inaccurate.

That said, if you bear in mind that it might not be totally accurate, Wiki can be a useful first port of call.

I'm with your daughter about representative trials but it's adverts that wind me up when they say something like 78% of all people who tried it agreed then you see that the sample was only 67 people.

Wiki may not be accurate, but neither are most other forms of information, newspapers, magazines, books etc. If it is important we should always cross reference information and check it's source.
If, for instance we take history books, where do the authors get their data ?. from other books primarily, so if there is an inaccuracy it gets compounded.

Look at the sources. Follow up references. The fewer there are, the more suspicious of accuracy one should be. Also, follow the money. People with a political or other type of 'agenda' often pay big bucks to have certain information widely disseminated or, conversely, suppressed.

When I was at worked I was an information specialist in my subject, economics. If mangers or engineers need business information I did the research and provided them with the information they wanted how they wanted it. It was my responsibility to make sure that the information I gave them was correct and reliable and on time.

Then the internet came in. Senior managers decided that people with skills like mine and those of Librarians were unnecessary as everyone could source their own information. The result? a lot of highly paid managers spent two or three times as long as me at many times the cost trying to source information and with no way of knowing how reliable that information was because they didn't have any expertise in the either the subject they were researching or how to check on its reliability.

Me? I made use of a very generous redundancy scheme and retreated to early retirement with a pension and lump sum.

I don't trust 'facts' published in the national papers. Any of them.

Hopping from one link to another on the internet is for scatterbrains, and suffers from the Wittgensteins ruler problem. You can get an answer to any question you like, but if you don't know it's reliable it's of little or no use. (Except when it can be verified at no cost, of course.)

Whenever I want to learn about something I read a book, where you get a comprehensive argument properly developed in a logical sequence. I try to be selective about what I read, making sure that it's written by a qualified academic affiliated to a recognised academic organisation, with a comprehensive list of references in the back. Much of what I read comes from reference lists of previous books, or books reviewed in New Scientist.

If I want to research anything I use Google Scholar, as it cuts out all the rubbish and lists only the peer reviewed science, I don't read newspapers except for the odd webpage that somebody has linked to. If I'm arguing a case on an internet forum, I try to include my references so that people can follow them up and decide for themselves whether I've misinterpreted them.

Historical films which are full of inaccuracies and fanciful ideas are mis-educating many who think that they are factual and accurate.

When I was working it was imperative to go to the 'horse's mouth', check and double-check if researching anything for my boss; however, I find googling and looking up facts for my own interest from different sites quite entertaining now I am retired.

The proliferation of material available on the Internet complicates the process of researching anything. It certainly seemed somehow 'easier' or clearer in the past when there were fewer sources to check and these were likely to be apparently reputable because they were found in a library.

I've worked as an editor and researcher though and I would say that as long as you are questioning of your sources, it is easier now to find original sources and to broaden your search way beyond what would have been available pre-Internet.

Obviously peer-reviewed articles are considered the bees knees, just like double blind trials in medicine but one thing the Internet has made all too clear is that knowledge is not pure and unsullied. In academia and medicine, knowledge is power and often related to money (through funding and profits to be made, or not) and there are many instances of fudged trial results, stolen and manipulated material and corporate or professional bodies moving to squash data that didn't suit. I have studied history and anthropology and medical science at post graduate level and what you can now find out that is legitimate, and otherwise, is staggering.

One very small instance of how things are not always what they seem could be the historian, Hugh Trevor Roper, whose reputation was forever sullied by his authentication of diaries said to have been written by Hitler. There was a political and financial background to his decision to validate the diaries and it seems to me that this is always the case. Look at the arguments raging around the NHS at the moment. Look at the way herbalism is marginalised by conventional medicine and the EU which means that you can now buy only tiny quantities of medicines that have been in use for generations.