@Pelth are you a racial supremacist

GG @Deleted User, you just advanced to level 8!

i'm not accusing you of anything

i'm just asking

<:waitwhat:583236680903950355> you can find sources on most topics on search engines, i don't even understand that logic

you literally can't

you can

you can also use keywords to narrow down the search

if you remember something remotely relevant or close to the study then

yeah you can

university based databases are going to be a lot better but there are plenty of things you will have a difficult time finding on those

many times you have to go into physical libraries

you clearly have never had to do actual reseach for anything

google scholar has some things but it's pretty limited

Using the internet =/= no research, again that assertion doesn't make sense.

like to read these individual journals you have to pay hundreds or thousands

that's why the material is not publicly accessible

Sure, still doesn't negate the fact that there are *also* sources on various search engines for most things.

not really

Yes there are. I'm not even commenting on validity or anything, the fact is that the internet has at least a few sources on most things.

Maybe because you think that, that's why you always want easily accessible sources.

But it's an incorrect thing to think

i never stated I wanted only easily accessible sources

Many sources I use are from physical books

I sometimes provide the book names

The slow twitch, fast twitch muscle thing for example is commonly accepted

and backed up by empirical evidence

as is the hormonal thing amongst races

Observation of phenotypical features and understanding the underlying biological forces that produce them is a skill that can't easily be taught. I can't teach it to you, you have to learn it on your own.

Biology and Crime by C.R. Jeffery is quite good.

Book

I don't really care about university databases that you use nor was I saying that they're worse than the internet, as I wasn't addressing that. Again, you can also find sources for things on a variety of search engines and you haven't substantiated an argument against this claim other than a comment on my thinking, which isn't an argument and just a deflection. Physical books also have a tendency to become obsolete after a few years.

The idea that they become obsolete is false. Most of the time they do not.

It depends on what the topic is

Siege by James Mason is not obsolete

🤬

Also, there aren't necessarily superior scientific opinions persay. You should always be cross checking new paradigms with the old ones

Seeing what fits together with other things

many new psychological theories are total garbage

for example

I also never argued against that. As time goes on new information is going to be discovered on a topic, meaning that a previously published book is not going to have that info and is then obsolete in and of itself