RE: References ?

RE: References ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

MzMia -> RE: References ? (12/29/2008 7:01:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Could it be if we all used offsite references to explain our thoughts, we could in fact lose the ability to explain ourselves ? Could it be also that there is a hint of laziness in gathering words from other people's minds to speak on behalf of us ? I hate to see the day when it may come that from post to post within a thread, it is just a mass of links to other places, other people, and other people's thoughts, not the person posting that link. You are so damn cute Anerin, I am enjoying this thread. Actually, when a post is ONLY a link I normally don't bother clicking on the link. Many people already do that--start a thread and just post a link! When it comes down to post to post that only contain links, move on!

Hippiekinkster -> RE: References ? (12/29/2008 7:30:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin What is wrong with oppinions though, surely when someone asks a question, they are seeking the oppinions of others, not oppinions in general, on the world wide web. If someone sought the oppinion of the world wide web, they would search the web, not ask questions here. I post here, to stimulate conversation, I ask questions here, because from experience, I have found people here, those that engage on the forums, largely they appear to be of a more flexible and higher level of understanding than other forums I regularly visit. So here, I spend the majority of my web time, rather than other places, and this is the only forum where I have stayed in my four years of internet access. Other forums I have joined, well, most have faded away, here, I like it here, and like most of you people, most of the time. Opinions are fine. Just don't try and tell me that an opinion is a fact. If I care enough, I'll shoot it down. I rarely seek the opinions of others on the Web. I'll make an exception when I find that someone has more eloquently opined than it is possible for me to do, what with my limited vocabulary and all. [:D] And if I do post another's opinion, I will attribute it. Case in point: my post on LadyEllen's "disproportionate much?" thread.

marie2 -> RE: References ? (12/29/2008 10:00:47 PM)
There's a big difference between an opinion and a fact. I think when people are stating cut and dried facts, and others dispute those facts, it does help to reference the information from a reputable source. True, not all sites referenced are reliable, but I guess those who are interested at least have the opportunity to view some of the info that's out there. Mostly I think it has to be taken on a case by case basis, and around here, sometimes with a grain of salt.

Aszhrae -> RE: References ? (12/29/2008 10:04:59 PM)
quote: Mostly I think it has to be taken on a case by case basis, and around here, sometimes with a grain of salt. Or a pound of sugar. Much more effective some times.

marie2 -> RE: References ? (12/29/2008 10:47:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aszhrae quote: Mostly I think it has to be taken on a case by case basis, and around here, sometimes with a grain of salt. Or a pound of sugar. Much more effective some times. Yeah, and if that doesn't work, a bottle of chilled vodka.

Aszhrae -> RE: References ? (12/30/2008 1:02:55 AM)
No wasting the vodka. Use a bottle of cheap wine instead.

rulemylife -> RE: References ? (12/30/2008 2:36:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Could it be if we all used offsite references to explain our thoughts, we could in fact lose the ability to explain ourselves ? Could it be also that there is a hint of laziness in gathering words from other people's minds to speak on behalf of us ? There are certain topics that lend themselves to strictly opinion while others should require some supporting evidence. The only hint of laziness I find is the intellectual laziness of people who post disputed views on a topic without any documentation to offer credibility. If you have an opinion on a controversial issue, say stem cell research, your opinion wasn't formed in a vacuum. It was influenced by what you have seen and heard about the issue. Somewhere along the line your opinion was affected by outside sources. What is wrong in citing those sources to bolster your argument and let others judge whether they find those sources reliable or not?

Aneirin -> RE: References ? (12/30/2008 2:54:05 AM)
I come across this , 'problem' at college where if I am writing an essay or a report, the tutors expect to see links and references to what I have written. I have to argue at this, because I see the point of research is to seek information and form my own oppinion from that information. The tutors knowing their subject, should know if I am talking crap or not, not have to follow my trail to see where I get my information from. I argue that if I were to just read every published article and take that as is, there will be no further thought on the matter, we will learn to take others words, published words as the word on the subject. One thing I have been told by a college dedicated to stimulating creativity, is that everything has already been done, there are no new ideas, my answer, is if that is so, we may as a species may just give up now, for we need not try to discover more about ourselves and our world, because as you say, it has all been done before. I believe the human race is capable of more and more as it evolves in certain directions, and that modern media could be seen as limiting creativity in certain directions.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: References ? (12/30/2008 3:25:46 AM)
quote: I agree with Orion!! There is a big difference between a source such as "The Washington Post", and sites like Joe'sBullshitblog.com. Actually, that's not necessarily true. Newspaper stories are almost always secondary sources. Journalists are generally just data collectors. Unless they were personally involved in the story they were covering, their opinion is no more valid than anyone else's. If the Joe in question actually had personal involvment or was an eyewitness and can prove it, his opinion would be more valid. So when someone in here says bullshit to someone's link to a newspaper, they are certainly entitled to their skepticism. Just because something was written in a major newspaper doesn't make it a fact.

rulemylife -> RE: References ? (12/30/2008 3:35:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin I come across this , 'problem' at college where if I am writing an essay or a report, the tutors expect to see links and references to what I have written. I have to argue at this, because I see the point of research is to seek information and form my own oppinion from that information. The tutors knowing their subject, should know if I am talking crap or not, not have to follow my trail to see where I get my information from. I argue that if I were to just read every published article and take that as is, there will be no further thought on the matter, we will learn to take others words, published words as the word on the subject. One thing I have been told by a college dedicated to stimulating creativity, is that everything has already been done, there are no new ideas, my answer, is if that is so, we may as a species may just give up now, for we need not try to discover more about ourselves and our world, because as you say, it has all been done before. I believe the human race is capable of more and more as it evolves in certain directions, and that modern media could be seen as limiting creativity in certain directions. You are viewing the citing of sources as just a regurgitation of someone else's thoughts rather than an expansion of those thoughts. Yes, the point of research is exactly what you stated, but if you are going to give me an opinion based on that research I would like to know the source you based your opinion on, even if your opinion is not in total agreement. You are also overlooking that some opinions are based on wholly inaccurate information. I used the stem cell example because there was a thread a few months ago where some posters claimed stem cell research has never produced any worthwhile results. Should that have been disputed merely by offering an opinion that it has been worthwhile, or does it make more sense to offer factual evidence of scientific knowledge that has been advanced because of that research. If someone argues the Holocaust never happened, or that man has never been to the moon, should I just get into a "no you're wrong, I'm right" argument or should I offer the evidence to the contrary?

MmeGigs -> RE: References ? (12/30/2008 5:07:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Often I have seen posted, people ask to see a link to material before they will take anyone's point of view, and often if it is the poster's own experience, they are ignored or thought to be lying unless they can provide back up via a link, why? If I'm posting about my own experience, I don't think anyone's going to insist that I back it up with anything unless what I'm saying sounds outlandish or I've got a history of telling tall tales. I don't recall ever having been asked for cites when I've posted about my personal experience. However, if I make generalizations based on my experience and contend that it's somehow universal or the final word on the subject, I'm likely to be challenged, and rightly so. If I use facts or statistics to support my claim, I can expect to be asked to back them up - provide a source and show that the information I'm relying on is actually reliable.

came4U -> RE: References ? (12/30/2008 3:27:26 PM)
It is like any of our other senses crave....as of recent it has been the belief in the "little oblong box in the corner of the room, it is constantly telling us what to believe is real" David Icke discussing television, lecture 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ewSRzH4A4Y Less than 3% read books, less than 15% read newspapers.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: References ? (12/30/2008 4:32:27 PM)
~FR~ The best verifiable sources, if you must list one, is a peer reviewed publications.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875