Sources, cites, opinions, views (what you should/n't bring to a debate and why)

[Mangetout]

In light of a few recent threads here on the board (which I am not going to link to) I thought it would be useful to discuss debating tools and specifically why some sources of information are considered more reliable than others.

Pretending for a moment that I don't know anything, what makes an information source credible and conversely what makes another doubtful; please explain as clearly and fully as possible and feel free to link to examples.

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by Mangetout
Pretending for a moment that I don't know anything

<cringe> that seems to carry the rather pompous implication that I think I really know everything, sorry, that was not my intention.

[gobear]

It seems to me that if you wish to persuade others in a debate, you must ensure that your evidence meets some basic criteria:

Use primary sources as much as possible. If you wish to make a point concerning, say, the beliefs of the LDS, you ought to link to the LDS officlal home page, and not merely quote qhat a secondhand source says about LDS beliefs.

Don't use an op-ed piece to back up a factual assertion. If a poster wishes to make a point about Israel's treatment of Palestinians, he should quote from an unbiased news source, and not quote a columnist's opinion as fact.

Check for bias. If you only cite wildly biased sources that support onyl your side and do not address the objections posed by the opposition, your POV will get little respect. For example, if you wish to make a point about gay promiscuity, you should use facts from the American Psychologial Association or some neutral source--if you cites come from godhatesfags.com, you won't get much of a hearing.

[musteion]

I'd agree with the use of primary sources and checking for bias, and add that providing direct links to sources whenever possible is also a good idea. When one quotes from something that no one else can get access to, it makes it pretty difficult to show that it isn't taken out of context.

[erislover]

gobear, your first and third criteria are possibly contradictory in most cases.

Primary sources are good for demonstration of a problem with a group, though the problem would need to be spelled out in some fashion—perhaps in an op-ed article (not likely). Otherwise, most primary sources are definitely biased. I mean: that's why they are who they are, because they think they are right.

Which isn't to say they will present the matter unfairly, but rather that it is easier to be skeptical of a primary source talking about themselves.

Third parties make for objectivity, IMO.

As for your second point, op-ed pieces can have factual information in them, though I agree that a different source would be better if only because it should be easier to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were.

As for your third point, bias is a word people use to smear what they disagree with. Reference my previous comment on this. "If I am right, it is a fact; if they are wrong, and yet they hold their opinion, it is bias."

Logical arguments, several sources from across the "bias spectrum" (whatever the issue is there are bound to be all sorts of 'wingers' for it), and a little wit make the argument. I have never, ever, made such an argument. I accept far less for a valid discussion. But, my room is also very messy, so this might not apply to everyone.
...

Anyway: valid sources are contextual. I would tend to accept with less skepticism anything done by a panel or other otherwise disparate group of [insert relevant field here] than I would a single article quoting people all over the place. In some cases this is not normal behavior. In these instances, cites become a wild goose chase where a poster attempts to synthesize (at best) the opinions of 'wingers' in order to offer an argument.

I don't think a solid rule can be made about sources. For some things it is easier than others: a debate about legality could run the non-cite gambit with an argument about morality, or it could play out as a debate over inconsistent rulings, in which case cites would crop up from our own legal system. Here an opinion paper or even an article that didn't specifically mention which case it was wouldn't impress me at all.

IMO most of the arguments had in GD make "good" citations impossible. The debate is a synthesized opinion from several sources, and if it were so cut-and-dry that someone could just lay down a few links and some symbols from predicate logic then there wouldn't be anything to debate.

A "good" cite proves your opponent wrong. I think that is what most people look for. When offered a cite in response to their own challenge, they then proceed to demonstrate why this cite is not good and so on.

A cite should, IMO, at most, be used for matters of definition or simple facts not open to severe interpretation (a cite about gun crime statistics, but not a cite about what gun crime statistics means: that's the damn debate!). Otherwise, well, that's why we're here: to debate, not to practice vB coding of hyperlinks. So debate.

Again, MHO.

[rsa]

For sources that include citations, one should be leery if most of the citations are to works by the author. Also if other authors are cited, they should not be a just to a small group who only cite works among themselves.

The more scientific or technical a paper is, the more you might question a single author as opposed to multiple authors. Not a hard and fast rule by any means, but a bit of a clue in some cases.

[december]

Here are my thoughts on [b[gobear's[/b] suggestions.

Use primary sources as much as possible.

Amen. I totally agree.

Don't use an op-ed piece to back up a factual assertion.

An opinion from an op-ed should not be used to support a fact, but a fact mentioned in an op-ed might be OK. There are responsible op-ed pages (like the WSJ) whose statement of facts are as reliable as a news report's statement of fact. They're both pretty reliable, but not 100%; both are subject to spin.

Check for bias.

This is good advice, although it's sometimes easier said than done. E.g, I happen to think that the BBC is biased against Israel; someone else may conisder them to be unbiased.

If you only cite wildly biased sources that support only your side and do not address the objections posed by the opposition, your POV will get little respect. For example, if you wish to make a point about gay promiscuity, you should use facts from the American Psychologial Association or some neutral source--if you cites come from godhatesfags.com, you won't get much of a hearing.

I certainly agree that one ought not use BigotsAreUs.com. However, I'm not so sure I'd fully trust the APA, either. This gets back to the point about how to tell if a source is biased.

I would add to goberar's list:

-- Reliable sources are better than unreliable ones. E.g., the New York Times is better than the National Enquirer.

-- More or stronger cites are better than fewer or weaker cites, but some cites is better than no cites at all.

-- If you quote a segment from a cite, don't quote out of context.

-- If you paraphrase a cite, represent its point accurately

[erislover]

If you need a cite to do anything more for you than supply a fact, then you shouldn't be citing. There is nothing more annoying to me than to read a debate of cites. If you make claims that resemble statements of fact, you should be prepared to use a cite to demonstrate it, or reason it out according to other facts.

It is trivial to ask "cite" for everything, much like children may annoy their parents by asking "Why?" [answer] "Why?" [second answer] "Why?" [et cetera]. If it is a fact that is in dispute a cite should be able to settle the issue clearly. If it is a claim that is in dispute cites are always going to be questionable and debateable themselves (note counter-cites and subsequent cite wars). The blame lies as much with the person asking for the cite as the one who would offer it.

Of course, there's always the ever-popular "dimsissive 'cite'" call which is used in place of actually fighting ignorance. I will not comment whether these people need a break from fighting ignorance and so should be allowed leeway or not.

I reject december's additional rules for the problems they present in interpretation.

[ResIpsaLoquitor]

How about:

Keep your anger out of the debate.

...by which I don't mean you should be dispassionate about how you argue. And conceivably, under some circumstances, it'd be ok to get pissed off (though none come to mind). But if a debate is supposed to be a reasoned argument, then no cussin', fightin' words, insults, derogatory comments, etc.

Typically, as soon as you throw "a**hole" into your debate, you've lost the audience.

[Cervaise]

Originally posted by ResIpsaLoquitor
Typically, as soon as you throw "a**hole" into your debate, you've lost the audience.

Yeah, but throw a half dozen into your vegetable stew, just for the flavor. Take 'em out before serving, of course.

[erislover]

I don't know, a**holes just aren't as filling, even with a good beef stock.

[december]

So, what's the a**hole cut of meat called?

Does it have different names on a cow, pig, sheep, etc.?

If it doesn't have a name yet, what should it be called?

I believe McDonald's calls it, "All beef patty..."

[Cervaise]

In all honesty, december, I think it's called a bung.

I'd do a bit of Googling to verify, but I'm at work and I'm not at all confident about what a search based on that word would produce.

[Mangetout]

OK, how about NOT BRINGING HIJACKS? Hmmm?

[Voyager]

Originally posted by rsa

The more scientific or technical a paper is, the more you might question a single author as opposed to multiple authors. Not a hard and fast rule by any means, but a bit of a clue in some cases.

Not sure I'd agree with this. Many works with multiple authors are by a professor and his/her students, which is not much different from a single author.

Also, different field have different publish/perish pressures. We know that some papers got published without being read by some of the authors. You know that if a paper has ten authors, most of them did little or nothing, unless the paper is really epochal.

I'd count the quality of the publication and the level of peer review far more than the number of authors.

[JS Princeton]

I'd count the quality of the publication and the level of peer review far more than the number of authors.

Right on, Voyager! There is something of a level of taste that goes on in the number of authors on a paper. Some scientists I know include everybody and their mother that has contributed one inkling of an idea in the authorship of papers. This especially seems to happen in collaboration papers. When you get 100 authors it may seem impressive, but may not be nearly as worthwhile a work as a sensible single-author paper that was written by some frustrated graduate student trying to get to the bottom of some issue. Another problem with these big collaboration papers is that some people try to get the "big names" to contribute a tid-bit here or there and then include them as authors. Sometimes this ploy is used (surreptitiously) to insinuate that the ideas in the paper or data presented is of more importance or of better quality than it actually is.

In general, sources in science are good when they are demonstrated to stand up to scrutiny. We can look for correlations between number of author names, reputation of the journal, etc., but ultimately it comes down to whether or not the ideas presented make any meaningful additions to the body of knowledge of the community at large. There have been more than a few "gems" that have gone unnoticed by scientific communities for years only to be dredged up later when someone else rediscovers the phenomena. Likewise, some heralded breakthroughs have turned out to be nothing more than dead-ends. It would be nice if competent works could be easily and objectively distinguished at first glance, but I'm afraid there are no 100% accurate shortcuts in evaluating citations.

[Dangerosa]

In some debates, there really only is personal opinion. It is fine to use. You just need to recognize that it is opinion and only data will make a fact out of it.

In some debates, there is really only personal experience. Once again, it is fine to use, but a single ancedote is not data.

The Bible is authorative only on itself (and even then you run into version issues, translation issue, etc.). You won't get very far using it as an authorative source for moral issues - because not everyone on this board is Christian, and not even the Christians all agree. You get less far using it as a scientific source.

[Justhink]

"""""OK, how about NOT BRINGING HIJACKS? Hmmm?""""""

OP: "Who Will Be The First To Brave The Edge Of The Earth?"

Reply: (summary) The Earth is round, nobody will be doing that.

OP: Fu**king hijackers, you're being reported to the mods! I hope you get banned. Get the hell out of my thread you troll!

-Justhink

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally posted by december
So, what's the a**hole cut of meat called?

Does it have different names on a cow, pig, sheep, etc.?

If it doesn't have a name yet, what should it be called?

I believe McDonald's calls it, "All beef patty..."

For a turkey it's called "the pope's nose". (sorry, I don't have a cite)

[snermy]

Well, I've found it very helpful to try to avoid the obvious logical fallacies, although I recently got so annoyed at a poster's repeated "arguments from authority" that I pulled some counter-arguments from that same questionable "authority". I'm not proud, but at least it was in the pit, not GD.

[Apos]

---There are responsible op-ed pages (like the WSJ)---

Cough cough... before of after they started measuring every comidity by it's value in gold? Before or after they concluded that the Clintons had Vincent Foster killed to cover up... something? The WSJ is remarkably good paper, but even conservatives admit that it's editorial department is populated by quite a high level of quacks and loons.

Editorials are lousy places in general not because their facts are or are not always true, but because the short polemic format makes for some remarkably bad interpretations of even the most solid facts, as well as things like considerable sins of ommision.

---Third parties make for objectivity, IMO.---

I'm not sure that this is really true. Third parties have their own intellectual biases, approaches, and limitations on their knowledge, even if they are largely uninvolved in a particular debate. Oftentimes, third parties are the LEAST informed sources.

[Linear Crack]

Given the fact the I have the debating skills of yam, I'd like to see a thread, such as this one, dedicated to the Protocol of Debating in GD

I think it would be very helpful (for me anyway) to have a thread that took a debatable topic such as Gun Control or Gays in the military, and create a "mock" debate that could be scrutinzed not only on it's topic, but more importantly, for the debating tools provided.

Each response could be critiqued on it's value, or lack of, to the thread at hand as it pertains to debating techniques.

Though it seems somewhat of a pipedream to see this idea materialize, it sure would give people, such as myself a local reference for debating skills.

-LC

[even sven]

What is the place of anecdotes?

It bugs me when people post something like "my mom was gay and then she decided she wasn't and that means people can convert from being gay". A single incident rarely proves anything except about that specific incident. We all know that anecdotes are pretty poor technique.

But there are other times when anecdotes are essential to allowing other people to see the mind set of other people. For example, in a thread about Israel, a person posting their personal experiences with living in Israel might provide a lot more incite into why things happen the way they happen. There are some things that facts and figures can't convey- no statistic will ever convey the hopelessness of poverty, or explain adequately what it feels like to be a Black person looking for a job in a White town, or what it means to live in a war zone.

I'd be very interested in finding some good guidelines as to when anecdotes are appropriate and when they are not.

[Typo Negative]

In debates, it's always good to keep an open mind and accept the possibility that you could be wrong. There is no shame in rethinking or modifying your position when presented with evidence you may not have been aware of or considered.



Of course, that should go without saying.

[UDS]

Reports of personal experience are perfectly valid for (a) illustrating or amplifying the views which you hold, or (b) explaining why you hold those views. But they have less validity in supporting an argument that other people should hold those views also.

[rsa]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rsa

The more scientific or technical a paper is, the more you might question a single author as opposed to multiple authors. Not a hard and fast rule by any means, but a bit of a clue in some cases.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Voyager
Not sure I'd agree with this. Many works with multiple authors are by a professor and his/her students, which is not much different from a single author.

...

I'd count the quality of the publication and the level of peer review far more than the number of authors.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was not intending to imply that there was a correlation between the number of authors and quality. I also wonder when I see 10 or 15 or 20 authors listed. But just as an interested lay person who occasionally browses the LANL archives, if I am trying to figure out if a paper is interesting or just cranky, I have noted that most cranks don't have collaborators.

[erislover]

Apos, it is true that sometimes third parties are uninformed, but it is also true that first-parties are often biased. There is a very real trade-off here if you are looking for a cite to do more than pump data out for you to analyze (which is often the case).

But I would doubt there is any real criteria that exist for determination of a good cite. We have here rules of thumb that seem to work in some cases. What makes it through this sifter is just going to have to do, I think.

...

I tend to think: if a debate can be settled with cites, it isn't much of a debate. They are useful, of course, in correcting others, but here is where most people request a cite (knowing one won't be found) instead of demonstrating the opposite. I don't think that's very ignorance-fighting, but I must admit I am not chief among ignorance-fighters to begin with!

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by Apos
---There are responsible op-ed pages (like the WSJ)---

Cough cough... before of after they started measuring every comidity by it's value in gold? Before or after they concluded that the Clintons had Vincent Foster killed to cover up... something?

What's your point here? A decision to measure commodities by their value in gold is not a fact that would be cited. (The actual value in gold is a fact, and could be cited from this source). And the conclusion about Foster is also clearly opinion and not fact. That's even assuming that your claims here are true, which I highly doubt.

The WSJ is remarkably good paper, but even conservatives admit that it's editorial department is populated by quite a high level of quacks and loons.

I don't.

[Apos]

---Apos, it is true that sometimes third parties are uninformed, but it is also true that first-parties are often biased. There is a very real trade-off here if you are looking for a cite to do more than pump data out for you to analyze (which is often the case).---

As I noted, third parties can be both uninformed AND just as biased. There is no reason to suspect that someone is impartial and objective simply because they don't have a direct stake in an issue. It pays to be just as skeptical of bias in third party cases as in first party cases.

---A decision to measure commodities by their value in gold is not a fact that would be cited.---

You obviously aren't a routine reader of their editorial page if you don't know to what this refers.

The WSJ has a long history of very soberly and forcefully and continually arguing that what our economy really needs is to go back on a gold standard. We can have a discussion on how wacked out that idea in some other forum, but it's just one of the many strange obsessions that the editorial page has that make economists slap their heads in disbelief. And that's just economics. I don't think we even want to get into things like Whitewater.

---And the conclusion about Foster is also clearly opinion and not fact. That's even assuming that your claims here are true, which I highly doubt.---

Perhaps an opinion at first, but then a habitual reference to as a fact when listing the crimes of the Clintons against all humanity. The point is, we're talking about it being "resposible" in the same sense that december thinks that the NYT editorial page is not. But if that means thorwing around totally unsupported accusations, performing mind-reading on opponents, and generally just slandering everyone within reach left and right, I'm not sure I see any difference.

---I don't.---

Well, you can always learn. Though I really hope your image of what rational conservatives are like isn't exclusively formulated around the voices that dominate the WSJ ed page...

[Caffeine.addict]

An opinion from an op-ed should not be used to support a fact, but a fact mentioned in an op-ed might be OK. There are responsible op-ed pages (like the WSJ) whose statement of facts are as reliable as a news report's statement of fact. They're both pretty reliable, but not 100%; both are subject to spin.

If you are going to use an op-ed piece for a factual assertion, wouldn't it make sense to do a bit more research and find the information you need from another non op-ed source.

Is it a good idea to set strict guidelines as to what is and what isn't an appropriate cite? As noted by even sven, anecdotal evidence sometimes detracts from the argument and sometimes adds to it. Even an op-ed piece can be germane to the issue being discussed if the discussion revolves around the support that a position has.

A cite should, IMO, at most, be used for matters of definition or simple facts not open to severe interpretation (a cite about gun crime statistics, but not a cite about what gun crime statistics means: that's the damn debate!).

The only qualm I have with this is that sometimes statistics aren't clear as to what they mean and a cetain amount of explanation is needed.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by Apos
---A decision to measure commodities by their value in gold is not a fact that would be cited.---

You obviously aren't a routine reader of their editorial page if you don't know to what this refers.

The WSJ has a long history of very soberly and forcefully and continually arguing that what our economy really needs is to go back on a gold standard.

Repeat: "not a fact that would be cited". If someone argues that we must return to a gold standard, and uses the WSJ's opinion on as a cite, he has cited opinion as fact. But no problem with the editorial per se, and no problem with using any facts that the editorial happens to contain.

---And the conclusion about Foster is also clearly opinion and not fact. That's even assuming that your claims here are true, which I highly doubt.---

Perhaps an opinion at first, but then a habitual reference to as a fact when listing the crimes of the Clintons against all humanity. The point is, we're talking about it being "resposible" in the same sense that december thinks that the NYT editorial page is not. But if that means thorwing around totally unsupported accusations, performing mind-reading on opponents, and generally just slandering everyone within reach left and right, I'm not sure I see any difference.

You might not see a difference if the issue is the "responsibility" of the WSJ editorial writers. What we are discussing here is the reliability of their facts. Unless you can show me that they present Clinton murdering Foster as being a fact (and I don't believe you can), your point is moot.

Well, you can always learn. Though I really hope your image of what rational conservatives are like isn't exclusively formulated around the voices that dominate the WSJ ed page...

Don't worry about me - I'm doing OK as it is.

I can't say I'm a regular reader of the WSJ (or any other) editorial page, but I've read quite a lot of it over the years, and it is pretty much mainstream conservative (as opposed to moderate conservative - but I would think it is to the left of the National Review) and very well written. I don't believe that "even conservatives" admit that it has a high level of quacks and loons (though there may be one or two conservatives out there who do think so - there's one or two of everything out there).

One of the central problems with any debate that touches on ideological perpective issues is how to define the spectrum - everyone tends to put their own position as close to the center as they reasonably think they can get away with, and define the rest of the spectrum from that vantage point. Here, it would seem that you are far enough left that you see the WSJ as being populated by quacks and loons. So there are probably people who are conservative from your perspective who agree with you, but they are likely not what is commonly referred to as conservative. I suppose these would be your "rational conservatives" as opposed to your "irrational conservatives", i.e. the conservatives that you really disagree with.

One final note - I would suggest that you cease your habit of quoting other people's words by using dash marks. It makes it somewhat difficult for the slower people like myself to sort out your words from those of your opponents. The SDMB has this most excellent quote function that you can use. There are other iconoclasts who prefer their own systems - italics, boldface etc., but yours is the worst, for which reason I usually skip all your posts. (For some reason this one cought my eye - probably because it was very short.)

[Voyager]

Originally posted by rsa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rsa

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was not intending to imply that there was a correlation between the number of authors and quality. I also wonder when I see 10 or 15 or 20 authors listed. But just as an interested lay person who occasionally browses the LANL archives, if I am trying to figure out if a paper is interesting or just cranky, I have noted that most cranks don't have collaborators.

I see. You're right, I think, single author papers might be a bit more "cranky" or way out there than multiple author papers. However, the most interesting ones are single author cranky papers that survive peer review. Those are the ones that shake things up. Dijkstra's "Gotos considered harmful" letter had no co-authors, after all!

[Apos]

---Repeat: "not a fact that would be cited".---

Eh? All of these positions cited "facts" to support their contention.

---Here, it would seem that you are far enough left that you see the WSJ as being populated by quacks and loons.---

No, I'm one of those conservatives (aside from some social issues and libertarian notions). I think I'm pretty intolerant of ridiculous ideas and rhetoric on both the right and left.

A lot of my criticism is based on the economic side of things. The split between the economic reporting in the paper, and the advocacy of certain economic policies that live far outside of the conservative economic mainstream is a pretty big chasm. Supply side economics, for instance, is NOT the same thing as conservative economics, and never was, though the paper certianly liked to pretend it was (even its heyday it was largely a creature of the WSJ journalists and a few outsider economists: and they gave Reagan's otherwise pleasant econ policy is one big black eye, as well as crippling Dole). Neither is the unbelievably silly drive to go back to the gold standard. Both of these policies were argued for with great venom at anyone who dared question them, and were presented using extremely confused, and even boldly dishonest, grasp of economic reality.

Perhaps I do have a strange take on conservatism: but my take is largely taken from conservative economists and policy wonks, not from columnists like Peggy Noonan. I'm probably not a huge fan of columnists and editorials in general.

---I would suggest that you cease your habit of quoting other people's words by using dash marks.---

Okay.

---There are other iconoclasts who prefer their own systems - italics, boldface etc., but yours is the worst, for which reason I usually skip all your posts.---

Sure. Whatever.