Like you said, anyone should have an opinion. I shared my opinion that "they should stop printing out this type of propaganda material disguised as research", and that's my opinion.
When it comes to social stuff like this, I believe "statistical data" is the weapon. Most people don't truly understand statistics so it's easy to fool the general public just by using percentage numbers.
My point was NOT that they should have provided more statistical proof.
Instead it was that they started out with an agenda so the research was flawed from the beginning. Just like how most research funded by cigarette companies to prove that cigarette was OK was flawed from the beginning.
Of course, you can't get away from social agenda when it comes to social science research, but all the real valuable social science research results come from genuine curiosity whereas a lot of bad research results come from a clear goal to convey their existing message.
I just can't imagine how one could have come up with the underlying hypothesis of this paper WITHOUT starting from an agenda. If you disagree with me, please share your thought on why you think there was absolutely no social agenda when these people started their research.
When it comes to social stuff like this, I believe "statistical data" is the weapon. Most people don't truly understand statistics so it's easy to fool the general public just by using percentage numbers.
My point was NOT that they should have provided more statistical proof.
Instead it was that they started out with an agenda so the research was flawed from the beginning. Just like how most research funded by cigarette companies to prove that cigarette was OK was flawed from the beginning.
Of course, you can't get away from social agenda when it comes to social science research, but all the real valuable social science research results come from genuine curiosity whereas a lot of bad research results come from a clear goal to convey their existing message.
I just can't imagine how one could have come up with the underlying hypothesis of this paper WITHOUT starting from an agenda. If you disagree with me, please share your thought on why you think there was absolutely no social agenda when these people started their research.