| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
Two More Clues as to What Passes for “Evidence” and “Research” in the Land of Giantology
Two More Clues as to What Passes for “Evidence” and “Research” in the Land of Giantology
3/22/2015
I won’t have much time to write about giants over the next couple of weeks, but I wanted to pass on two things that I think illustrate something important about what constitute “evidence” and “research” among those who enthusiastically and uncritically promote the existence of giants.
The second example comes from the experience that Jason Colavito wrote about in his blog post entitled “Outraged Gigantologist Accuses Me of Lies, Asks Readers to Send Me Hate Mail.” Apparently someone compiling old newspaper stories about giants felt that Jason’s own transcription of some old newspaper stories on his webpage constituted theft. You can read the story yourself.
The thing that’s interesting to me about the giantologist’s reaction to Jason’s compilation is that it makes visible the idea (also expressed in this interview with another aspiring giantologist) that the simple act of collecting old newspaper clippings constitutes “research.” Here’s a definition of “research” that pops up online:
“The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.”
Notice that research involves something beyond collecting primary data. Cutting and pasting newspaper articles is not, by itself, research, and no-one who understands what “research” actually is would claim it to be so.
