247
This is not a problem. Science includes peer review for sanity checks. Her paper might be a case study; it's not necessarily a null hypothesis rejection.
It sounds like what they want to do is write an essay from extensive personal experience (presumably the topic of the essay is being critical of the education system), but since that isn't accepted they have to find articles about the same topic. IMO there is nothing wrong with writing an essay based on personal experience.
That was my read too: because anecdotal evidence is untrustworthy, now they need to legitimatize what they've observed firsthand.
It's not that anecdotal evidence is untrustworthy, it's that it's only applicable to those who were the ones to experience said anecdote.
Plus someone has to be the first person to write about it.
I dunno, I’d give it the benefit of the doubt. It might just be an incredibly niche topic, like a poor prognosis for early onset schizophrenia in adopted women of color.
(And yes, you can hit me with the schizophrenia fun facts)
No. She’s a teacher, and teachers of all people should be expected to know how the scientific method works.
I’m confused. Person is writing a paper and looking for supporting evidence based on what they have observed. They are not running a study.
Science starts with what you have observed and you make a guess based on that information, and then you try to find out if you’re right.
For example, I see a big yellow orb in the sky a lot of the time. Why? Does the earth rotate about a big yellow orb? Does a big yellow orb rotate about the earth?
Being wrong about your guess does not negate that which you have observed. You might learn why you observe what you have observed but it does not take away from the fact that yes you have indeed observed something. This person has made observations and is trying to justify that using existing research. Again, they are not running a study. You don’t know if existing literature points to the persons hypothesis being wrong. You don’t know if it’s something that hasn’t really been studied so there isn’t that much evidence right now and person is trying to get someone to look into an issue.
They also very well could be writing about something incredibly niche based on those firsthand experiences.
Niche things tend to lack easily accessable information.
So hunting your ass off can be most of the working lol
This GREATLY depends on how one frames their own experiences, which we also do not get much information on from OP's post. If someone is merely seeking validation for their conclusions which they claim their experience points at conclusively, then they are FAR from the scientific method.
In fact, I'd argue the wording does point to such logistic fallacies. They cite their own experiences, not something more removed from subjective experience.
"The obvious issues I deal with..." are BY DEFINITION subjective. This person, and you yourself, are failing to understand the scientific method.
There are different levels of understanding.
I'm trained in physical sciences. I studied at university and then worked ~8 years for a research department and at one point learned 2D NMR and how to run molecular simulations on a supercomputer. I'm well aware of the challenges of winning grants against colleagues and getting papers published and surviving peer review and then hoping your work gets noticed outside your weird little niche.
My buddy is a schoolteacher. He can run circles around me with arithmetic and explain the scientific method in rap format. Kids eat it up! But he's probably never done a gradient integral (not that I remember how either) or contributed to a collegiate press release.
We're both ostensibly working with the same core principles but the reality ends up quite different. Context matters.
You are demonstrating that you don't understand how the scientific method works.
Truly apt username, btw.
What exactly is there to judge here? There’s almost no context. When I was an English major, this was the process for writing literally any paper. You pick what you want to write about and try to find published articles that support your claims. If you can’t find any, pick something else.
It's kind of ironic that you're posting this this way, basically telling us to draw our conclusions about the person who wrote this without any information on what they're talking about or why this is bad or laughable to back it up.
Making prognostications on the future isn't something that necessarily adheres to the scientific method.
Isn't this the scientific method? Form a hypothesis and then test said hypothesis?
You test it, yes, but you have to be willing to be wrong. Just looking for everything that proves you're right is not scientific.
I guess I don't read this as them refusing to learn they are wrong...
Politics in a nut shell
Tell me (OP) you've never written an academic essay without telling me you've never written an academic essay. Lmao
Flat earther? Creationist?
This isn't terribly believable; I've seen some wildly bad takes in "the literature" because there's just so many for-profit journals that you get a ton of junk science. That, or you find something in the archives from 50 years ago.
Now, if the professor is any good they'll put restrictions on even that but the bar is so low we're just happy to see a citation that isn't a blog or made up by AI.
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2025
247 points (100.0% liked)
Mildly Infuriating
41180 readers
163 users here now
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS