Cite for specialized fields

Great Debates
1

To be resolved: Whether a cite/link is required within a debate on “Great Debates” to confirm a commonly accepted theory within a specialized field that is not fundamental to the argument itself, but is only used to support an argument that is made.

I say no.

My reasons:

#1. We cannot all be members of any particular specialized fields. So, some people are going to have a level of knowledge in a subject that is considerablely greater then others. Expecting them to defend what they’ve spent considerable time simply learning is not generally interesting for the expert in that field. See issue #4 concerning lying as well.

#2. It isn’t always possible to provide a link. The internet is not the source of all human knowledge. Many times very specialized fields simply do not have their basic theories spelled out. Quite often a search within those fields reveal only links to books and university courses.

#3. Although “Great Debates” can be very interesting, it is at the end of the day only a message board. No great decisions will be implemented because of the results of this board. I think “Great Debates” should be more about the exchange and debate of ideas and not about whether the current thinking in some specialized field is accurate or not.

#4. By and large, if somebody wants to come onto the board and lie to “win” a debate does it really matter. Is that the typical behaviour of the board inhabitants? I’ve participated in and read a vast number of “Great Debates”. Although, I’ve seen many a differing view, I don’t recall seeing too many bold faced lies. With respect to issue #1, do we expect that members of specialized fields are generally lying about their fields to win these debates? I think not.

So, yes or no? Why or why not? Can this board function with the need for endless cites when they really aren’t vital to the central element of discussion? Should be accept that certain underlying concepts are simply true and move on to the “meat and potatoes”, so to speak, of arguing ideas and what that theory means with respect to the debate?

I do wish to be clear. I do not suppose this to be true when the underlying theory is the debate itself or where do competing and mutually exclusive theories are presented.

Example #1, a debate on astrology would be a debate on the theory of astrological influence on human behaviour/fate.

Example #2, a debate on martial arts in which one person proposes that grappling is superior and the other that striking is superior. This would require a defense of the competing theories.

2

I hate doing this, but how about a cite with an example of what you’re talking about.

3

Believe it or not, it is possible to provide a “cite” without a “link”. There are these things called “books” and “professional journals”.

4

In any debate, it is always useful to provide a source of useful background material which relates specifically to the matter at hand.

They become essential only when contesting factual claims. The command “cite!” is often seen when someone posts an opinion masquerading as fact.

As for specialist knowledge, I tend to furnish useful sources even in my own specialist fields (which don’t crop up in GD anyway!). However, if it ever did come to pass that I could not find a web-based citation for a particular bone of contention regarding acoustics, then I would hope that others might trust my expertise.

Unfortunately, a far bigger problem is people asking to trust their expertise when they, like the rest of us, are mere laymen in the issue at hand, having only superficial knowledge.

5

bnorton: I’d rather not, since I don’t want this to become a personal issue and since I’m not intending it that way anyway. But the irony is wonderful. :slight_smile:

Dogface: True; however, what is or should be sufficient? Is listing a basic book on the subject sufficient, is paraphrasing the material at a basic level sufficient, or do you think that exact quotes from the text are necessary? If a bona fide expert (SentientMeat posts a great point) has to search through old texts that they haven’t looked or likely even seen for years in order to find a convienient paragraph is that going to be interesting and worthwhile for the specialist? I don’t think so. Personally, I’m inclined to say that a paraphrasing of the theory in laymans terms should be sufficient so that everybody knows what is being talked about. If an “expert” is unable to provided a meaningful, brief explanation then they’re expertise would fall into doubt (see below).

SentientMeat: An excellent point. Of course, we can never know who is a real expert in the field and who just thinks they know what they’re talking about. For example, I’ve no doubt at all that Bricker and DSYoungEsq are lawyers. Their expertise is obvious from their posts, but sometimes it isn’t so obvious. I’d think it would become apparent that they’re not by the quality of the posts. The posts would likely generally lack specific information for example. So, if the claims are seemingly, consistently outlandish & lacking specifics then the expertise would fall into doubt and calls for references might be appropriate. Does that make sense?

6

Glitch, in the thread in question (which I also won’t name), you DID provide cites. They just weren’t links. In my opinion, giving the title of a book (including basic testbooks) or a specific issue of a journal/magazine is fine as a cite; if the opposing party is that interested, then they can go find a copy of the book or journal and read it to see if it supports the citer’s claims. As you and Dogface have both said, not all human knowlege is to be found on the Internet.

7

Many university departments have extensive lecture courses online now, Glitch. Even in subjects like Law where tiny details from old cases can be important, it should be no more than a few minutes’ Googlework to find the relevant documentation.

I think the burden of proof is appropriately located right now. If someone makes a factual claim, or posts an opinion without expressing that it is just an opinion, they should be able to provide some support for such.

8

The stupid thing about cites is that people then attack the cites as “biased” and stuff like that because it doesn’t fit their ideological bent. All they do is shift the debate from the topic at hand to the alleged expertise of the cited author.

Doesn’t that kinda negate the whole point? The conversations are like this:

Poster 1: Bush sucks!
Poster 2: Cite?
Poster 1: www.whatever.com
Poster 2: That doesn’t prove anything. The author’s biased.
Poster 1: So? You asked for a cite.
Poster 2: That cite’s not good enough.

I’m as guilty of this as anyone else, but even I can see that that’s the general trend of the discussion. So, really, what’s the point of citing something when all you’re going to do is seek out something to support your opinion anyway and the cite will invariably be savaged?

In most cases I’d much rather debate the issue than be sidetracked into irrelevancies.

9

Did you mean for us to follow the link to “Curious George”? :slight_smile:

10

I have to agree with other that the Internet is not the sum of all knowledge. Cites from books, print periodicals, even TV shows can be used. As for any source of information, they all can be questioned.

I’d say that Internet sources can be even less valuable than the others. While most of the other types of information usually go through several sets of eyes, some internet sources are simply blogs of some indivudual with nothing better to do than type up his own personal vitriol on variaous subjects.

The only characteristic that the internet has that other sources do not is convenience of access. This characteristic says nothing about the truth or lack thereof of the information within the cite.

11

Do you have the faintest idea what a textual citation is? I’ll provide an example for you.
You doubt that Alzheimer’s disease is associated with amyloid plaque in the brain? Check the following: Lahiri et al. 2003. Current Drug Targets.

You don’t believe that Adolf Hitler was born in Austria? Take a look at William Shirer, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

These are minimally sufficient.

Now, I will forestall the short-sighted, who will hastily leap to the ill-conceived conclusion that every single purportedly factual statement must be so documented. That’s nonsense, and no sensible person could ever conclude that I was advocating such a thing. Instead, if and when a purportedly factual statement is challenged, then one ought to give a source for the claim–failure or refusal to do so must be considered admission of falsehood. That source does NOT have to be a link, it can be a book or journal, as shown above.

12

On-line lectures should be judged based on their source. Something from the MIT project of putting course material on the web might be believed, but something from Joe Assistant Prof of Sheboygan State might be a bit more open to question. These aren’t reviewed, and I’ve even seen stuff from senior profs in grant proposals that is just plain nonsense.

The OP concerned commonly accepted knowledge in a field. I would suspect that for this there are enough people on SDMB with sufficient expertise so that an incorrect statement of generally accepted knowledge would soon be challenged. We’re not discussing recent research results here, which do need to be cited.

I recently looked for definitions of a couple of basic terms in my field, and had a hard time finding any. The ones I did find were inconsistent, often contradictory, and depended on the context they were being used in. So, sometimes finding a cite for basic knowledge is not so simple.

Possibly relevant anecdote. When Arthur C. Clarke was writing “Men in Space” for Time/Life Books, he was meeting with a fact checker. The checker asked him for an authority for a statement. “You’re looking at him,” Clarke said. It made things go much faster. :slight_smile:

13

I guess my level of disagreement here will extend as far as you wish “only” to be demeaning. It is a forum where I present, defend, and challenge opinion, and the forum is as important to me as those opinions. If I didn’t care to hold them, I wouldn’t care to defend them. If you don’t care to defend them, please don’t care to present them (here). I don’t know about you, but I take some pains to investigate my own opinions and have a certain level of confidence in them, so they’re pretty important to me. There’s no “just” or “only” about it. :slight_smile:

I hate giving and asking for citations. I will from time to time, but usually for explanation and not for supporting my stand (or asking others to support); it is my job to support my stand. If all it took to settle the matter is a cite, then it isn’t a very great debate. Other uses of citations, like providing data to interpret, can really present a lot of troubles, but I won’t go so far as to say they are a complete waste.

Bottom line is, we’re not on a debate team. There are no judges, and there is no scoring. Winning, if one can be said to be here to win, could only mean convincing someone else of the validity of your claims, but that seems like a pretty steep condition for a “great debate”. Maybe I take the forum too seriously, so many topics come through here that are just like
GQ With Interpretation". Good reading, but boring participation (for me).

As for the more direct issue of “specialized fields”, I guess it is a matter of who is debating. I’ve seen some pretty fucking technical debates here where all parties had roughly the same expertise. :cool:

14

Thanks to everybody so far for the responses.

Dogface: Thanks for the follow up. I did know what a textual citation is.

erislover: I should clarify “only” since you’re right it can definitely have the conotation of being derogatory. I mean it only in the sense that nothing more significant than our own self improvement will really come out of this (not that this is nothing, I consider it very important). This isn’t a place where the results, which is often eventual disinterest by all parties, will have any effect in the real world except as you say maybe changing somebody elses view (has that happened yet? :wink: ).

So far it seems like being are kind of slightly in favour of cites but don’t consider them a big deal because they are often either suspect or treated as being suspect.

15

I guess every regular poster here knows my position on the claim “CITE?”

And as a good example of “cites” coming from internet pages: Try to read some of the threads about Islam, Islamic nations (and everything related to these issues) and look where the “cites” come from.
If I would set myself to refute all those so called “cites” in their utterly nonsense, there wouldn’t be enough hours in a day.

Salaam. A