Help
Sign In »
Register Now!
SkepticLance said:
Guys
It is extremely common on this forum for people to make scientific points without references.
It is extremely common on this forum for people to make scientific points without references.
While I personally think that's a monster Lance creates for himself, you can't ignore the fact that we don't use references anywhere near as one would expect on a forum like this. Certainly we ask for them much more than we provide them without being asked ourselves.
Do we do it often enough?
Do we rely too much on poor sources?
Do we invoke higher standards for others than we do for ourselves?
How much prior knowledge should be assumed before we point to a source?
This is a discussion about how frequently we use citations and references.
It is not intended to become a SkepticLance bashing exercise, but I am going to reply to some of his comments from the other thread because I think they highlight some issues with understanding and working with sources.
Quote
For example : on the current 'salt water amphibians' thread, by Mokele
"No, we have quite strong evidence that tetrapods only left the water once, and all modern tetrapods evolved from them. Modern amphibians (technically called "Lissamphibia") are just a highly specialized lineage who evolved a hyper-permeable skin loaded with toxin glands."
This is NOT a criticism of Mokele, and I think he should be perfectly at liberty to make such statements without references. I have enough respect for him to accept such a statement at face value.
"No, we have quite strong evidence that tetrapods only left the water once, and all modern tetrapods evolved from them. Modern amphibians (technically called "Lissamphibia") are just a highly specialized lineage who evolved a hyper-permeable skin loaded with toxin glands."
This is NOT a criticism of Mokele, and I think he should be perfectly at liberty to make such statements without references. I have enough respect for him to accept such a statement at face value.
The difference here though is that Mokele will, if asked, be delighted to trundle off and fetch at least one source. He won't deflect the issue for 200 posts.
Should we have some sort of baseline rule whereby a source must be provided if requested? That would be like the only "absolute minimum force" rule we could make; one does not pick up an argument and run with it if one's source is challenged.
Quote
However, there are people who make a demand for references for the sake of argument.
I am inclined to agree on this point. The tactic only really works though in threads where there is a dearth of people who are experienced enough with the subject matter to be able to point out how redundant a citation is.
Quote
Such a request should be made only when an issue is in doubt, and when the statement the request is made about is of sufficient importance. Simply forcing people to waste their time in pointless google searches is not needed.
I think the common counter-view to this will be that if you have to search on google to prove a point then you are ostensibly not familiar enough with the subject matter to go straight to the correct journal database, or even a web site which accommodates articles for the relevant discipline.
Quote
If I wanted, I could find, and quote, dozens of cases where perfectly respected contributors to this forum make statements of fact without references.
Yes, but like Mokele they would if asked. Whereas we have to strong-arm you sometimes for dozens of posts before you will back up your entire argument with even one reference. Find and quote dozens of cases of other people doing that (outside of P&S, that would be cheating).
Also don't neglect the opposite condition, which would turn up dozens of examples of the same people volunteering sources.
Quote
I am a bit miffed that I get criticised for doing the same on points of fact that are unimportant.
What a poster thinks of as unimportant might be perceived as critical to their arguments by other people. On a site like this, there's a good chance those other people will have seen something in the reasoning or data which the original poster did not.
I think that's a lesson we can all learn from, in fact. It would help if we all stated why a reference is necessary when asking for one.
Quote
As you know, when I am forced to find a reference for my points of fact, I do.
Eventually. Although to be fair, you really do have to admit that this is usually anything which aligns with your view.
SkepticLance said:
I remember your scathing comments about my argument on guns and suicide, just after I posted a reference from researchers at Harvard who were saying exactly what I had argued. That is academic support and good sense.
This is a false memory though, isn't it Lance? In fact you linked to a news item on the Harvard network which briefly discussed researchers' views and repeated an inference. Do you really want that as your example? It took 165 posts before you went looking for that. And I didn't post any scathing comments "just after", unless you think ten days later is very quick and that scathing means "totally unrelated".
Quote
It was obvious then that you were not reading my references, which makes their value sometimes a bit moot.
The reference was read, Lance. It was ignored for various reasons which were stated in the thread. Because you were looking for something to support your conclusion, instead of interpreting all the available data (which was another criticism you received), you of course found a source which agreed with your claim. But we had already disputed the reasoning behind that claim, which meant that we also disputed the inference which was made in the Harvard news article. So basically it was an appeal to authority. Sorry.
I know it's difficult to do right for doing wrong sometimes. But there is another valuable lesson to be learned here: those of us who are trained in researching sources and evaluating data and evidence need to be much more mindful that other people aren't. I think this would best be expressed as practical advice to accompany requests for sources.
SkepticLance said:
You were another who clearly failed to read properly my references in that earlier thread. My own arguments were exactly the same as the Harvard arguments.
That doesn't make you more right. It makes you as right as they are, which in that case was "not a lot". Especially since it was a 3rd hand report about an inference.
I think this exposes the major danger of googling for supportive articles - one either doesn't get the depth one requires, or falls into the trap of selection bias.
MultiQuote
