What do you think, should the researchers read texts, what are supporting their own opinions or texts, what is introducing the opponent opinion?

What do you think, should the researchers read texts, what are supporting their own opinions or texts, what is introducing the opponent opinion?

To be or not to be that's the question, what we might ask again and again. And the result is that we can think this question about comfortable texts, that researcher is working, while this inmate reads some texts and looks the videos for finding sources for their own texts. That means that if we are using that point of view in our work, we might face another thing, and that is the texts, what the researcher makes are not always please those professionals.

But the purpose of that kind of action is that the researcher would find out the reason, why somebody is against their opinion. That little bit uncomfortable way to act is also uncovering the agenda of the opposite side. If the agenda is that they simply don't like the researcher's personality, that thing might be not a very scientific way to knock out the results, what researchers have found out.

There are many actors in the field of justice and in the rule of government, who are telling people, that they are willing to make compromises and discuss things. But at the same time, those actors would put the conditions, what other people are not willing or they cannot accept. Sometimes in those cases, those actors are willing to discuss things only if they are above the opposite side.

There are two versions to put the scientific results in the garbage, and the first one is to make a very popular blog or something like that and then simply level those results by claiming that the researcher is a joker when everybody laughs. And the other way is to get the better results of the investigations by using more effective and more modern tools for getting that data.