The 10 Stuff-Ups We All Make When Interpreting Research

“UNDERSTANDING RESEARCH: What do we actually mean by research and how does it help inform our understanding of things? Understanding what’s being said in any new research can be challenging and there are some common mistakes that people make.

Have you ever tried to interpret some new research to work out what the study means in the grand scheme of things?

Well maybe you’re smart and didn’t make any mistakes – but more likely you’re like most humans and accidentally made one of these 10 stuff ups.”

Embarrassed

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/10-stuff-ups-we-all-make-when-interpreting-research

Better to admit

Advertisements

A Practical Guide To Critical Thinking By Greg R. Haskins

Professionals need to develop themselves into “Critical Thinkers.” The more you know about this the easier it is to evaluate what to believe in and strive for.

I found this very interesting as a “Practical Guide.”

critical-thinking

“This paper presents a concise introduction to critical thinking.  It is intended as a handy tool to help anyone evaluate or develop sound reasoning and arguments.”

 

http://skepdic.com/essays/Haskins.html

OSHwiki

ohswiki

http://oshwiki.eu/wiki/Main_Page

OSHwiki has been developed by EU-OSHA, to enable the sharing of occupational safety and health (OSH) knowledge, information and best practices, in order to support government, industry and employee organisations in ensuring safety and health at the workplace.

OSHwiki aims to be an authoritative source of information that is easily updated, edited or translated and reaches beyond the OSH community.

Correlation does not imply causation – If you don’t understand this STOP quoting “Statistical Evidence” to PROVE your point!

correlation

“Just because there are gifts under the tree Christmas morning doesn’t mean Santa is REAL.” Alan D. Quilley

Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase in science and statistics that emphasizes that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.[1][2] Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.

The counter assumption, that correlation proves causation, is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for “with this, therefore because of this”, and “false cause”. A similar fallacy, that an event that follows another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is sometimes described as post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for “after this, therefore because of this”).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

 

 

When Theory and Reality Don’t Agree…It is NOT Reality That is WRONG!

So many traditional safety theories are so very wrong and not supported at ALL by modern evidence. Hard to help people let go of their sheeple beliefs and behaviours. We’ll keep trying! 🙂

10389411_10152781347832042_5299223845068720167_n