So one of our professors assigned us some group presentations. And there was one topic or argument, and he asked a bunch of students to present or debate or give arguments in favor of it (whatever that was) and then to a bunch of other students ask to prepare presentation with arguments against that thing. Then, he explained how you have to consult sources, like research papers, news articles, and this and that in order to form basis of your arguments. Like you have to first review such material and then you use those sources to back your argument.
This pissed me off so much. I asked what if the topic that I have been asked to present in favor of, is something I am against, and same thing can apply vice versa. He didn't understand my point and said that you have to use sources and blah blah. But I was so angry and I think I couldn't control my frustration and that's why I was unable to articulate my point clearly, and it came out something like, 'it's not the way it is. Something either is, or it isn't. How can one pre-decide if it is or it isn't.' Yeah, I know it was very weirdly phrased. My voice this time was slightly loud and had some kind of argumentative tone in it. He replied the same blah blah but at the end he said something like, that's what research is; to find things out. I knew it wasn't any use. I said nothing.
Two of my friends later told me that sir didn't understand the question. And on some level, I think that yes he didn't understand my question, but not because I articulated it badly (my friends were smart enough to understand me, he wasn't?), it's because he had been trained and indoctrinated in that manner.
There is an enormous amount of people who don't understand what research is. They think research or science or whatever the academia is supposed to do, is to find out things (which I think is correct). But their way of finding things out is so wrong. They think of it like finding the right source to quote, or finding the right data to analyze, or the right econometric model to apply, or finding some other right thing to do, and this kind of finding will result in production of some academic work. Yes, it will produce academic work but not valuable work.
What a true researcher simply needs to find is truth. Some overlooked, un-discovered piece of truth. That is the end. Rest are all means. Why don't people such distinguished understand a matter that simple. You can't give conclusions to people, and ask them to research arguments in favor of the conclusion because that exactly is the opposite of research. IT'S ANTI-RESEARCH!!
I don't know to what extent this applies to academia at other places but atleast here, we are all producing an enormous amount of anti-research work.
Thank you for coming to my Rant-Talk.