Here in Great Debates, people are constantly asking for cites. I have no problem with this, since they are important to support an argument and provide for spirited discourse.
My question, though, is: Are they always necessary? When someone is making an unsupported statement, is it necessarily incorrect without a cite to back it up?
And a follow up to that question: What do you think of the people in history who have said unsubstantiated things and have ultimately been proven correct?
I think that in many cases, people have been making valid arguments and have been dismissed for lack of evidence.
In keeping with the nature of my post, I have no cites in particular to show you. It’s just a general question pertinent to this forum.
I’m not trying to promote ignorance here. I am, however, trying to determine the validity of arguments formulated through observation and opinion. That, I think, is as important as specific analyses that are, in many cases, flawed to begin with.
I think that’s one of the most interesting questions raised in Great Debates. Sometimes, asking for cites is inappropriate, or else providing them is doing someone else’s homework for them. For example, I was asked to provide a cite to show that there have been breakthroughs in modern philosophy! Sometimes, a debate can devolve into a battle of cites, and starts to look like two Bible Thumpers slinging versus at each other. Now, if a person claims a statistic, or claims support for his view from some authority, then providing a cite seems appropriate.
Also appropriate are cites of any factual information on which an important point of argument hinges (e.g. “the southern face of the Great Pyramid of Khufu would not, in fact, have been used for billboard advertising, as this computer model clearly shows the face would have been almost totally hidden to port-bound barge traffic…”) However, when a personal observation or general impression is being conveyed as rhetorical support for an opinion, asking for a cite is generally unnecessary, and somewhat gauche.
I’d concur that this is a grey area depending on the content and depth of the discussion. A rule of thumb I’ve given my students is if you are presenting a piece of information as factual or at least as critical to your argument, you should provide a citation.
Where different sources of legitimate data seem to contradict one another, there is no harm in offering your own personal interpretation. For instance, “Kohlberg’s (1958) research on children tends to support a morality based on justice, while Gilligan (1982), in her own research found the existence of a competing ethic based more on care. I would tend to support Gilligan’s interpretation of morality…”
I’d mildly disagree with Libertarian though on the inappropriateness of asking for cites. Anytime a diverse group of folks comes together (such as in message boards) there will be varying levels of knowledge and experience. As such, I’d opt for providing a cite if so requested or at least explaining why you don’t feel one is warranted. In the end and as a general statement, I don’t see the request for citations as inappropriate, particularly on this board.
Yes, an interesting topic. We’ve done it a few times before - for example you can see my views in this post in this thread that addresses the general point.
I think it’s only REALLY inappropriate when a person responds simply with the word “Cite?” without providing any reason WHY or what sort of cite they’d like. Additionally, quite often I’ve seen someone demand a citation, they’d get one, and then immediately pooh-pooh the whole thing and demand a better one (i.e.- “John Lott’s information is flawed, find a better cite” or something like that).
This is a board devoted to combatting ignorance. If an empirical statement is unsubstantiated and either dubious or controversial it should be backed up. Unless it’s a joke.
Also, in my experience (IRL) people often get their facts muddled. Stating the source of your information enables the reader to assess your argument better.
In practice, of course, a fully substantiated post would be difficult to read (and burdensome to write). But when another poster asks for a cite, I usually find it to be a legitimate request.
All Information is not created equal. As a not-so wise man once said; “If the information does not agree with me, there is something wrong with it.” He was never wrong. (at least in his NSHO)
Then attack the information, not the source of the information. My aforementioned example of Lott is often dismissed because he’s supposedly biased, and as such any information should be ignored, period.
If the information were so flawed, one would think the flaw in the information would be obvious…
I would think it acceptable, expected and appropriate to evaluate a citation once it is given. To dismiss it is another matter, although I suppose some citations are rather dismissable.
(FWIW, I favor gun control, tend to avoid gun control threads, but don’t believe that Lott’s work should be dismissed. The problems in his analysis are actually fairly subtle.)
I agree. I was not arguing against you, merely complimenting your statements with my pointless views.
What really gets me is when the person asks for a cite, and then does not read it. (or just ignores the whole premise of the cite)
Also it would seem to stand to reason that if in several threads a particular cite was discredited point by point, it would be reasonable to dismiss it offhand. (instead of going through the whole tedious process of debunking it again and again) [links to the thread that debunks it should follow though]
Touche!