Why google for sci info?

[JC1]

I can see that most of people here are talking about pulling this and that scientific sources from google. I just don't understand. Don't you think that sounds bitter? I personally don't really use google for scientific info due to the fact that the result out of it doesn't seem to be credible and reliable.

 

My university’s library is a 7 story building open 24 hours with over 10 million books and countless articles you can find in their database and online...which keep me up to date in my field of emphasis and are far more accredited than those from google. Now anyone tells me why should i trust google as a credible source of a particular field of interests?

[YT2095]

Links to such Libraries can be found listed in Google, you can`t blame a Libraries card index if the books are no good (can you?).

that`s all Google is

[Sayonara]

For many people it's a way to get adequate information quickly. It also is more likely to return resources that everyone can access, rather than only those members who have academic library access.

 

I find that whether they are general or academic, search engines are only as good as the keywords you use.

[ecoli]

as a search engine, it's the best I've seen. Few, unobtrusive adds, and large search results. If you're not finding credible sources for science, reword your query terms, or use google scholar.

[5614]

Google will turn up reliable results. True there are unreliable results there also. But then that is true of all internet and even books. Some are good some are not.

[Mokele]

Google has a specific search, google scholar, that searches indices of peer-reviewed journals. This is basically the same thing as any other journal search engine, except that it's free. And better; I've found more stuff on google scholar than on any other journal search.

 

Shit, the prof teaching my evo class admits *he* uses google scholar preferentially.

 

Mokele

[LucidDreamer]

Google has become the most valuable information resource for me, for science topics or otherwise. I will often find exactly what I need after my first query, on the very first page. Sometimes I don't even need to actually go to the sites to get my answer because it tells me the answer with the selected text from one of the pages. I have found the information on google very reliable, which I have often cross-checked in science forums and textbooks. Often google will pull up pubmed abstracts, another peer-reviewed journal, or university professor sites when I look for science topics. I have become so use to using google and the internet that I automatically filter out sites that seem unreliable without thinking about it. If you factor in the advanced search options like google scholar or ability to search specific domains, google is the best source of information on the planet for most subjects, except the very specific, archaic, or information in obscure foreign languages.

[Yggdrasil]

Google is great for finding out basic info, though my first search is usually in wikipedia, since it will generally provide good links and you don't need to sift through irrelevant links. However, for more advanced topics and info on more current research, I rarely use google. For those, I rely on Crossfire, SciFinder, and PubMed.

[swansont]

Google is pretty reliable if you are looking for very basic factual information, like the mass of the earth, etc., which is why it is a tad annoying when someone posts a question asking for such information.

 

Answers to conceptual questions are more difficult, and increases the odds that the information is incorrect. Good examples of this relevant to this board are evolution, because there are many creationist sites that present strawman arguments and other incoorect information, and relativity, because the internet has given a voice to the many crackpots out there who can't wrap their minds around it and decide it has to be wrong. The internet obeys Sturgeon's law: 90% of everything is crud.

[JC1]

Google has a specific search' date=' google scholar, that searches indices of peer-reviewed journals. This is basically the same thing as any other journal search engine, except that [b']it's free[/b]. And better; I've found more stuff on google scholar than on any other journal search.

Mokele

Not all true. Last time i checked, it (ieee) asked me to purchase the articles or still requires you to be their member. And in the very first page, the return result are all books with table contents and abstracts.

[JC1]

Google is pretty reliable if you are looking for very basic factual information' date=' like the mass of the earth, etc., which is why it is a tad annoying when someone posts a question asking for such information.

 

Answers to conceptual questions are more difficult, and increases the odds that the information is incorrect. Good examples of this relevant to this board are evolution, because there are many creationist sites that present strawman arguments and other incoorect information, and relativity, because the internet has given a voice to the many crackpots out there who can't wrap their minds around it and decide it has to be wrong. The internet obeys Sturgeon's law: 90% of everything is crud.[/quote']

 

Same applied for evolutionists. Very few know what they're talking about. So you agree with me that one shouldn't use google for scientific information? like in my field, engineering, i've already had all the benifits from ieee as its member. Why bother to do googling?

[JC1]

For many people it's a way to get adequate information quickly.

But dangerious at the same time.

 

It also is more likely to return resources that everyone can access' date=' rather than only those members who have academic library access.

[/quote']

True. but very very rare for a specific topic.

 

I find that whether they are general or academic, search engines are only as good as the keywords you use.

Very true.

[LucidDreamer]

Same applied for evolutionists. Very few know what they're talking about. So you agree with me that one shouldn't use google for scientific information? like in my field, engineering, i've already had all the benifits from ieee as its member. Why bother to do googling?

Well, if you are looking for the definition for mitochondria or the distance from the sun to the earth, then it takes 15 seconds to google it, which is quite useful. Nobody makes up their minds about an important subject like evolution/creationism from a single search anyways.

[JC1]

Well, if you are looking for the definition for mitochondria or the distance from the sun to the earth, then it takes 15 seconds to google it, which is quite useful. Nobody makes up their minds about an important subject like evolution/creationism from a single search anyways.

If that was the case, I'd rather use wikipedia or answers.com. Quick and right to what i ask for.

[Sayonara]

But dangerious at the same time.

That's up to the discretion of the user. It's not "google's fault".

[swansont]

Same applied for evolutionists. Very few know what they're talking about.

 

And yet that still puts them a leg up.

 

So you agree with me that one shouldn't use google for scientific information? like in my field, engineering, i've already had all the benifits from ieee as its member. Why bother to do googling?

 

No, I think it depends on the information you're trying to get and your abiity to evaluate the results. The IEEE database is good, but there's no way to know if the information you want is there until you search through it. Journal articles have a limited scope.

 

As with any tool, the results are going to depend on the skill of the person using it, combined with the quality of the tool. If you can't separate the wheat from the chaff, it won't do you any good. Restricting your search to a database of peer-reviewed articles largely saves you from that task, but then the articles tend to be of a much narrower focus and written at a higher level.

 

People have told you their opinion - some find it useful. You are not in a position to tell them that they are wrong. You are, however, free to have your own opinion, and not find it useful.

[GradGrrl]

I love to Google, especially Google image search. I use it all the time to cut and paste diagrams into my type written notes.

 

I wouldn't quote it in a paper or anything, but it's fast.

 

Quite often you can find the same free article on Google as PubMed, but if you are specifically looking for papers to quote information, I'd use PubMed.

[Externet]

------------> http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/

[Douglas]

When I worked for Lockheed electronics, I used to receive a bunch of technical publications on design engineering. One of them was "RF design", which had plenty of informative technical articles.

 

I just googled "RF design" and found that it's $55.00 per year. Anyway, the point being that "google" may not give you the answer you want, but will point you in a direction where you might find the info.

[JC1]

As with any tool' date=' the results are going to depend on the skill of the person using it, combined with the quality of the tool. If you can't separate the wheat from the chaff, it won't do you any good. Restricting your search to a database of peer-reviewed articles largely saves you from that task, but then the articles tend to be of a much narrower focus and written at a higher level.

 

People have told you their opinion - some find it useful. You are not in a position to tell them that they are wrong. You are, however, free to have your own opinion, and not find it useful.[/quote']

 

Why would i go against them? everybody has their own way of learning. I agree that some people have raised several good points about using google. I think I’ll try google scholar and definitely I’ll modify with the advance search option and check for credible sources.

[RoyLennigan]

all i have to say is...

http://www.wikipedia.org

[Bio-Hazard]

Google is mainly composed by people with a Ph.D.

Wikipedia is some dude off the block with a high IQ.

 

However, wikipedia is not suppose to be taken as a credible source, but it is an insightful one. I'm a wikipedian, I know of this. Google is a lot better than things I've used in the past, MSN search for example. I still hate yahoo search to this day; Ugly layout.

 

Wikipedia is interesting though, because if someone is famous, popular, or real, you could wikipedia the name of someone from a googled article such as a professor and see if something pulls up on wikipedia as to who that person is, sometimes varifying who they are.