[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Attrayant *
**Are you saying that you don’t believe anything that is posted on the internet?
I do, with exception of the cases I mentioned. And this precaution isn’t only reserved for publications on the internet.
You do what you say yourself: you maku up other words then what I wrote. There are no other words to read in what I write then what is written.
When it comes to issues I have no knowlegde about at all, I need to rely completely on the research done by people who are specialized in that particular issue or field. While doing this I don’t overlook the fact that I am not able to compare their findings and conclusions with own knowledge and experience, and that I thus don’t have the tools to judge the information I gather.
In orther to fill more or less this gap, I give very much attention to the critics/remarks/approvals/additional research of others on what their collegues have to say and vice versa.
This makes it possible to become more or less informed and reach some balanced view about what is done and which conclusions are made about the issue.
That doesn’t mean that whatever conclusion I reach can have some form of authority.
These types of researches are far beyond the importance of what is ever going to be discussed on message boards like this, so I don’t know why you ask that question.
Salaam. A
I don’t rely on websites so I don’t post links to websites.
I don’t gather my information from websites so I don’t link to any websites to underscore whatever issue I come up with. Such “source” which some people here even call “proof” can’t have reliability for me. (How many times must I repeat that?)
I have already indicated where and when there can be exceptions made on this rule.
Yet even in those cases I am very reluctant to give links to whatever is posted on a website. If I ever do it, it must have a direct connection with the contenance of an OP on a topic I create, or to give an example with a post I make or in order to underscore which issue is at hand.
I risk then that people start acting as if I support what is behind the link (this was already the case on this very board). I don’t want that so I avoid it.
Further:
I don’t act as if what other people have written is my own work.
If I ever would quote out of what others have published, you shall see me giving the information in a footnote like I do in real life.
If posters here think they find “facts” on the internet then that is their sport, not mine. (I rather should say it is their problem.)
If posters need websites to be able to have “facts” for getting a debate: The same.
Salaam. A
The situation in Iraq became the mess I predicted - together with many others - as soon as The Bush Team started promoting the invasion of that sovereign nation.
And to say it with the arrogant words of Bush:
You ain’t seen nothing yet.
Sadly enough that is showing day by day more and more.
And I’m afraid the Shock and Awe has yet to get really started. Give it a bit more time and every religious leader has gathered some loyals and in addition to that every etnnicy shall raise its voice and the tribal networks will heat the fire.
Then please USA embark the Turks in the adventure and we have the complete scenery for years of disaster.
It is a good scenario for Hollywood, yet what The Bush Team and their applauders very effectively put aside and dismiss as non-issue, is that it’s not a Hollywood fiction there. Living people die and suffer there daily. And not only on the Iraqy side.
Sometimes we are arguing matters of philosophy or principle, and then cites are somewhat besides the point. If someone makes an assertion to back up their position, a cite makes it more credible. No cite, no credibility.
If we’re debating whether “Iraq is a mess”, it sure is helpful to have cites about: Death rates, Hospital opennings, Electicity availability, etc. No?
Examples of responses to questions regarding a claim for the specific gravity of a metal:
1: Told to me by some bearded guy in a subway.
2: CRC Manual (aka “Rubber Bible”)
3: I do not need to make a citation, for to do so would be beneath me.
The first is a cite to a weak source. The second is a cite to a verifiable source that others can check, even though it is not a web site. The third is no cite at all and amounts to “believe it merely because I said it”. Oddly enough, the verifiable cite is not to a website. If something is from your personal experience of an event, then that personal experience is the “cite”. But I’d say that a single person’s experience is hardly universal for most people.
I would suggest news media sites have more weight than messageboards/communities, cc: There are examples of bias and mistakes on respected news sites such as the BBC but the respectability of such a source is founded on its reputation for factual and unbiased reporting, and there are infinitely more examples of errors and bias in numbers 1, 3, 4 and 5 on your list.
And if I may bring up another bugbear of mine to the audience at large, the word cite is a verb, its associated noun being citation. So, either command another member thus:
“Cite?” is obviously a shorthand for “What is the appropriate citation?” Now, in the Golden Age ™ when correspondance was an Art ™, abbreviations were remarkably common…
Pardon the blatant Christian analogy, but you’re just in the “right Church, wrong pew”. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with your method of posting w/o cites. You just need to go here to do it.
To me, no. The argument isn’t whether electricity is available, but whether Iraq is a “mess”. You happen to define “mess” as “electricity isn’t widely available”. So say we agree on that, and you show that electricity isn’t widely available; hence, Iraq is a mess.
How is this a debate?
Well, I did indicate that facts provide a framework for debate. This is true. If facts are the point of contention, then the debate isn’t what we thought it was, or they aren’t facts (or both).
A question for those who feel providing cites is beneath them -
Under what circumstances would you accept the bare word of another poster as to the truth of his claims?
For instance, I do qualify as an expert in some matters. Suppose I finished some post by stating that I was expert on what I was discussing, and that you should just believe what I said. Would that be enough? If not, how would you expect I go about proving that I know what I am talking about well enough to speak authoritatively on the subject?
Shodan, I would hope one might submit a current résumé or curriculum vitae. Barring that, the “expert” may very well be some fellow in Atascadero languishing in a straitjacket, typing with a self-fashioned tongue stylus.
Here at the dope: until I find otherwise. I have no interest in researching claims other posters make unless I already have a reason to suspect them of intentional falsity. The facts of the case are largely uninteresting to me. I read GQ, I very rarely post there.
I don’t find citations beneath me in some way. They definitely have their place. If a debate hinges on facts, though, it seems rather not like a debate but a citation war. I don’t come here for that. I of course don’t care if others do, I just don’t participate, that’s all.
There are times in GD when citations from other than internet based sources have been dismissed as being insufficient - the poster wanted only (or at least one) internet source, of unimpeachable character, in english, not behind any registration.
The reason internet citations are often used is that they are easy - easily found, easily shared, and if imperfect, they can at least provide a basis for communication. There have been times when I and another poster have been debating and we each reference various texts, ranging from the popular to the scholarly. But unless I have access to that book, either on hand or at my local library, it will involve time and money to get on the same page. Even if I do have the book there will be a considerable ramp up time, with the thread falling far off the front page between responses. Finding an apparently reputable website that offers facts (especially with annotation though that may be incorrect of course), generally with commentary and analysis just cuts the cycle time.
Flip side is websites are easy to make, easy to fake (for the website creator, not the poster) and are qualitatively all over the map.
I agree with Shodan about personal expertise thing - the GD community are unwilling to take a single persons word. I would say that someone who has demonstrated expertise in a given area will often be given some benefit of the doubt (although those individuals are often able to find the best online references as well).
Note the “etc.” after my examples. It was meant to indicate that there are many other things to consider as well.
One might debate which set of indicators to use when deciding if Iraq is “a mess” or not, but once you agree on the indicators, cites are needed to verify claims of what numbers can be assigned to any indicator.