Fact Frenzy

Being faced with the task of performing and presenting research often means one is engaged in the challenge of finding, analyzing, and piecing together fact fragments.

Fact Frenzy offers this article as a general guide that may help explain how to extrapolate fact fragments effectively, while maintaining an objective and logical course based on sound reasoning.

Find Reliable Facts

In the age of this 21st century, it goes without saying that the easiest place to find great facts, besides first-hand or common knowledge, is to “check the internet”. But we all know there is just as much misinformation on the world wide web as there is accurate information.

Search engines such as Google, Yahoo, and MSN can sometimes be a great place to start finding fact fragments about a topic. However, sometimes you can find search results full of “answer” websites where just about anyone can provide an answer. Though they were “voted” or touted as being correct by some, their facts can be in dispute, if not wrong altogether. This is why knowing the validity of the source of information is just as important as the content.

The sure way to check the validity of a source is to look at the domain name of the website where the content is posted. (See also, “what is a domain name?”)

Here are a few links of examples of data and tools you can use by authoritative websites:

• WHO - World Health Organization Statistics
• National Geographic - A comprehensive “map machine” by National Geographic, containing demographic and scientific data
• Merriam-Webster - Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online
• FedStats - A collection of United States government statistics and data

These are just a few examples of where you will find data and fact fragments you can use to build your research upon. Of course, don’t forget Fact Frenzy - A site that presents articles based on authoritative sources.

Analyze the Fact Fragments

Once you’ve found a reliable resource, your next step is to be able to analyze your data effectively. One of the first obstacles is to limit yourself to what you “think” you know, or what your personal opinions are. Remain objective.

Even with cut-and-dry numbers and statistics, people’s own ideology and experiences can distract them from clearly seeing what the facts are showing, and lead to distorted results. This can not only happen on the part of the researcher, but also on the part of the author whose work is being researched. Facts can be presented or extrapolated in different ways, depending on one’s point of view.

Then, once you’ve taken on the persona of a calculator or a Vulcan, it’s time to dig in to the data. Prioritize which fact fragments are actually important to your objective. For example, if you’re putting together a report on comparative economic health of major cities in Pennsylvania, you probably may not need to research stats on how the Pittsburgh Steelers are doing. Unless of course, you came across specific data that attributed their wins to an increase of tourism in Pittsburgh, boosting the local economy.

Present the Facts

Aesthetics, writing style, and knowing how to write a good thesis statement are important things to know, but are outside the scope of this article. Nevertheless, how your assimilation of the fact fragments you’ve discovered are presented, in a general sense, can make all the difference in whether your work is embraced or rejected.

Unless you are just preparing a report on numbers, and merely need only pie charts and graphs to allow your audience to come to their own conclusions, your fact fragments are probably intended to point to a bottom line — an inference or claim.

Be prepared to defend your reasoning. After all, this is the crux of the matter which sent you on a “fact fragment frenzy” to gather your data. With reliable sources, objective thinking, and sound judgment, hopefully the conclusion you came to will be built on solid reasoning.

To illustrate this final point, we’ll explain two types of reasoning — deductive, and inductive — which can be applied both in abstract and mathematical cases.

Deductive Reasoning comes to a conclusion based on the belief that something is true through observation.

Example: A person believes the next ice cube placed in container X will melt, because the last 12 ice cubes placed in that container have melted.

Inductive Reasoning comes to a conclusion based on what is known, such as rules, principles, and other supporting facts.

Example: A person knows the next ice cube placed in container X will melt, because the temperature inside the container is room temperature, well above the freezing point.

RSS 2.0