NationStates Jolt Archive

Many people here complain about being asked to provide sources for their claims. I won't delve into questions about what kind of academic training they've had...I'll just point out the two main arguments made in favour of NOT giving sources:

1) It's not up to me to do the work for you.
2) No one believes anyone's sources anyway.

The first point is an attempt to reverse the onus of burden of proof. It's absolutely ridiculous. You make a claim, and someone else needs to go research that claim in order to either prove or disprove it? Please someone come forth and defend this.

It's the second point I'm actually more interested in. You see...there appears to be some real confusion out there as to how one should use sources.

Blindly googling a matter, then posting random links hoping no one will read them has a good chance of succeeding...but when called on it, please don't start crying. Especially when your source contradicts what you've claimed.

Worse, is the apparent lack of understanding as to the worth of a particular source. Blogs are opinion pieces and pretty useless most of the time, unless they actually provide links to good sources. And by good source, I mean studies, research, peer-reviewed journal articles, statistics put out by reputable organisations etc.

It's as though the average poster at NSG honestly doesn't understand the difference between a blog entry and an actual scientific study.

To which I have to say, argument #2 is really your own problem. If you provide shit sources, don't expect rewards.

Only about 1% of the claims ever get sourced here anyway.

Only about 1% of the claims ever get sourced here anyway.

SOURCE!

ha.

I don't know why it's so difficult. If I'm not merely giving my opinion...if I want to claim for example that there is more crime in one area than another...it's NOT that hard to go just look up some stats and post them. Why should anyone take my claim seriously without a source? Without a source, it's just an opinion.

And on many occasions, I've wanted to make a claim, went and found some sources...and realised that I wasn't actually right. So getting used to backing yourself up means you hone your research skills and *gasp* actually learn something in the process. I'm not sure why people are so adverse to it. Especially on a political forum.

I Only Use sources if I'm expecting an argument with Yankees or others, usually when I'm making a controversial point, e.g. Baby Monkey Tastes better then Baby Human...
(Joke example)

Only about 1% of the claims ever get sourced here anyway.Most people that would provide sources if asked never get asked because the people that disagree are the ones that wouldn't bother sourcing when called out on it. That's why, I'd hypothesize.

Most people that would provide sources if asked never get asked because the people that disagree are the ones that wouldn't bother sourcing when called out on it. That's why, I'd hypothesize.

What annoys me the most is not those people who refuse to source...I can pretty much just dismiss them from the the get go then.

I get pissed off by the people who just stick up a random source and then smugly pretend their argument has been proven. They often maintain this attitude even when it's pointed out that their source is biased, not suitable (ie, just a blog entry) or flatly contradicts the point they've made. That level of intellectual dishonesty enrages me.

This is why I prefer opinion. :)

This is why I prefer opinion. :)

You can only defend opinion so far. If your opinion is that something is 'x' and someone posts information proving that it is in fact 'y', you can't really keep claiming it's 'x' without some information of your own to back that up.

Then again, certain conversations are best suited to opinion.

You can only defend opinion so far. If your opinion is that something is 'x' and someone posts information proving that it is in fact 'y', you can't really keep claiming it's 'x' without some information of your own to back that up.

Then again, certain conversations are best suited to opinion.

or tacos. ;)

or tacos. ;)

I'm going to need a source on this, I'm hungry :p

What annoys me the most is not those people who refuse to source...I can pretty much just dismiss them from the the get go then.

I get pissed off by the people who just stick up a random source and then smugly pretend their argument has been proven. They often maintain this attitude even when it's pointed out that their source is biased, not suitable (ie, just a blog entry) or flatly contradicts the point they've made. That level of intellectual dishonesty enrages me.I dunno. I consider that the equivalent of not sourcing anything plus minimal effort. They're basically the same to me.

I'm going to need a source on this, I'm hungry :p

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/tacos.jpg

:)

SOURCE!

ha.

I don't know why it's so difficult. If I'm not merely giving my opinion...if I want to claim for example that there is more crime in one area than another...it's NOT that hard to go just look up some stats and post them. Why should anyone take my claim seriously without a source? Without a source, it's just an opinion.

And on many occasions, I've wanted to make a claim, went and found some sources...and realised that I wasn't actually right. So getting used to backing yourself up means you hone your research skills and *gasp* actually learn something in the process. I'm not sure why people are so adverse to it. Especially on a political forum.

Completely agreed.

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/tacos.jpg

:)

Sweet, spicy, crunchy, tacoic magnificence!

I don't have a whole lot of experience with different forums, but I wonder sometimes if NSG is not a little unusual, representing a minority of net forums, in that people are likely to be asked to back up their arguments here. I get the feeling that doesn't often happen in a lot of other forums. Maybe I'm wrong, but that could explain why so many people seem so flabbergasted when someone asks for a source and why they don't seem able to figure out what makes a good source and what doesn't. They've never had to get into the habit of looking things up.

In a lot of casual conversation, a point is usually carried just by the forcefulness or wit of the person arguing it. They either win on style, or they bully their opponent into submission. You don't need sources for that -- you only need yourself. But that's not how things are done at NSG.

I don't have a whole lot of experience with different forums, but I wonder sometimes if NSG is not a little unusual, representing a minority of net forums, in that people are likely to be asked to back up their arguments here.
I'm on a different forum linked to a comicking service, and in the one political thread, we've had the issue of sources come up when one guy started ranting on about what Venezuelo-Zimbabwean socialist Obama was going to be. It'll come up wherever academic debate is practiced and where people know better than to take statements for granted.

I'm on a different forum linked to a comicking service, and in the one political thread, we've had the issue of sources come up when one guy started ranting on about what Venezuelo-Zimbabwean socialist Obama was going to be. It'll come up wherever academic debate is practiced and where people know better than to take statements for granted.

This^^

If your forum features discussion heavily, you might not get much in the way of call for sources. If your forum features debate heavily, you probably will.

NSG is unusual, in that it is in the minority - being something of a debate forum.

It would be interesting to create a thread about something where sourcing is mandatory in every post. I predict it would last about 2 pages.

Only about 1% of the claims ever get sourced here anyway.

Is that an excuse? Or a complaint?

What, exactly, is the point of ths thread? Are we just bitching? Because, I think thatd be fun.

What, exactly, is the point of ths thread? Are we just bitching? Because, I think thatd be fun.

I make pointless threads too. I just get in trouble for them more often. :p

Many people here complain about being asked to provide sources for their claims. I won't delve into questions about what kind of academic training they've had...I'll just point out the two main arguments made in favour of NOT giving sources:

1) It's not up to me to do the work for you.
2) No one believes anyone's sources anyway.

There's a third argument I use sometimes: "I just spent the last 11 pages asking you for sources. I'm not providing one if you can't be bothered to do the same."

Otherwise known as the "You set the rules, now either play the game by them or accept that you've already lost" argument.

It would be interesting to create a thread about something where sourcing is mandatory in every post. I predict it would last about 2 pages.
You can't source knob gags or mindless flirtation.

What, exactly, is the point of ths thread? Are we just bitching? Because, I think thatd be fun.

Oh! My reply never posted?

The idea was that some of these knobs would come in and defend themselves. Or in the alternative, we'd maybe discuss what sorts of sources are good, and which should never, ever be used. Like Wilgrove's blog.

Like Wilgrove's blog.

Awesome.



Anyway, my biggest pet peeve when it comes to the source thing is people who say what their claim is (especially when its stupid) "common knowledge" and/or tell me to look it up myself.


That makes me a sad panda. And by sad, I mean angry.

Sources are only really important if it's something that's really out there.

Oh! My reply never posted?

The idea was that some of these knobs would come in and defend themselves. Or in the alternative, we'd maybe discuss what sorts of sources are good, and which should never, ever be used. Like Wilgrove's blog.I'll add Fox News and JunkScience.com to that list.

When it comes to answer one I think this covers it:
Burden of Proof
Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")

Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:


Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

(Source!: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html )

Maybe we should have a sticky that lists acceptable and not acceptable sources

Wikipedia is NOT one I would consider acceptable. Give me five minutes and I could have it that evolution is the theory of "a magical unicorn drinking too much vodka and urinating life into existance."

Wikipedia is NOT one I would consider acceptable. Give me five minutes and I could have it that evolution is the theory of "a magical unicorn drinking too much vodka and urinating life into existance."

Prove it.

Maybe we should have a sticky that lists acceptable and not acceptable sources



Or maybe people could develop some critical thinking skills.

I don't know how many times I've had to explain to someone *coughcoughneoB,TSFcoughcough* why an editorial is not proof of shit, and why a far better way of approaching the request for a source would be to find some facts. Verifiable facts.

Being familiar with your source would help. Nothing is funnier than someone putting up a source that directly contradicts the point they've just made....but rarely does the person who tossed up said source ever admit they've goofed.

Wikipedia is NOT one I would consider acceptable. Give me five minutes and I could have it that evolution is the theory of "a magical unicorn drinking too much vodka and urinating life into existance."

Wiki is a great place to start for an overview of an issue, and even better, there are usually a great list of external sources you can use.

Maybe we should have a sticky that lists acceptable and not acceptable sources
I don't think that's a good idea. For one, it'll be called out for liberal bias, because sources most rightwingers like using fail basic credibility requirements. Secondly, who will be choosing what goes on those lists? The mods likely won't care to spend their time on it, and there doesn't seem to be an acceptable way to appoint someone to this job without severe amounts of controversy.

Prove it.

I would, but I don't want to get banned from Wikipedia unless it's very, very funny. And messing with their entry for evolution is not that funny.

Wiki is a great place to start for an overview of an issue, and even better, there are usually a great list of external sources you can use.

I find it depends on the issue. For the most part, you're right.

Wikipedia is NOT one I would consider acceptable. Give me five minutes and I could have it that evolution is the theory of "a magical unicorn drinking too much vodka and urinating life into existance."I'd like to see you try something like that with the wikipage on the Holocaust. Wikipedia isn't entirely reliable, due to editability, but it lists plenty of sources that may or may not be valid (though the vetting process usually makes sure they are). Technically, you can edit anything you want into it, but we can still check what the page looked like before changes and it should be painfully obvious whether a claim is sourced or not.

I'd like to see you try something like that with the wikipage on the Holocaust. Wikipedia isn't entirely reliable, due to editability, but it lists plenty of sources that may or may not be valid (though the vetting process usually makes sure they are). Technically, you can edit anything you want into it, but we can still check what the page looked like before changes and it should be painfully obvious whether a claim is sourced or not.

Messing with the page on the Halocaust is most definitely NOT FUNNY.

And, yeah, you could. You could also undo the changes. But, that's not the point. The editability itself is the point.

Messing with the page on the Halocaust is most definitely NOT FUNNY.

And, yeah, you could. You could also undo the changes. But, that's not the point. The editability itself is the point.
What's a Halocaust?

And the editability is not in iteself an inherent flaw that renders Wikipedia an unusable source.

You don't generally get to use any sort of encyclopedia for a source in an academic paper...once again, it's a good place to go to get an overview of the issue to help you guide your own research, but not something you'd be putting down on your list of sources.

The only downside I see to the need to source things is the amount of time it takes to find the sources. I often don't comment in threads here because I don't want to have to spend 1-3 hours digging up the site of some place that is credible, but which usually doesn't know SEO (Search Engine Optimization) from a hole in the head--and is therefore buried in Google amongst the search-engine spam at about Listing #147. And if the site *isn't* buried, someone else will have found it, and made whatever point I was going to, long before I could. I think I've been first-in about twice.

I don't have a whole lot of experience with different forums, but I wonder sometimes if NSG is not a little unusual, representing a minority of net forums, in that people are likely to be asked to back up their arguments here. I get the feeling that doesn't often happen in a lot of other forums. Maybe I'm wrong, but that could explain why so many people seem so flabbergasted when someone asks for a source and why they don't seem able to figure out what makes a good source and what doesn't. They've never had to get into the habit of looking things up.

In a lot of casual conversation, a point is usually carried just by the forcefulness or wit of the person arguing it. They either win on style, or they bully their opponent into submission. You don't need sources for that -- you only need yourself.

On another forum I'm on (a discussion forum), for a long time the demand for a source was *invariably* followed up by OP Point #2: "I don't believe your source." That would happen no matter what the source was. For example if someone said, "X disease happens more in X US state" and used the (US) Center for Disease Control for a source, it still would get dismissed. Note that the "disbelief" was almost always more about trolling than actual denial.

Needless to say, that forum got an outright hostile attitude toward demands for source, expecting those demands to be merely setups for trolling. It only changed when a few members started posting sources on their own, and the others saw that hey, that's a good thing.

Coming here was quite a culture adjustment after that. Another thing I didn't expect to see was that there are several people who are willing to admit they're wrong after being obviously proven so. If that happened very often on the other forum, the server would probably melt down from the shock!

Messing with the page on the Halocaust is most definitely NOT FUNNY.

And, yeah, you could. You could also undo the changes. But, that's not the point. The editability itself is the point.Actually, I picked that page because messing with it is most definitely not possible.

What's a Halocaust?

A more extreme version of the Holocaust. Not only are they killing people, but they're capturing and torturing those people's souls.

And the editability is not in iteself an inherent flaw that renders Wikipedia an unusable source.

Am I going to have to get banned for severely altering one of their pages to prove why it is?

You don't generally get to use any sort of encyclopedia for a source in an academic paper...once again, it's a good place to go to get an overview of the issue to help you guide your own research, but not something you'd be putting down on your list of sources.

Depends on the paper, actually. I know of more than one that I've written where one was used and considered good.

When it comes to answer one I think this covers it:


(Source!: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html )

Typically, youre right.


However, on this forum, we have it the other way around, because otherwise certian members would conistantly make nonsensical claims and those of us with brains would spend every waking moment googling.


When I dispute someones dumb ass claim however, i usually give a source that proves them wrong.

Am I going to have to get banned for severely altering one of their pages to prove why it is?

Go ahead. You know damn well your vandalism won't last long anyway and you'll have gone through the effort just to prove your point wrong.

The Daily Mail and Daily Express are the only fair and unbiased sources I know of. Fox News might suffice on occasion, but its foreigness and liberal bias is blatant and at times quite offensive. No other sources are brave enough to tell us about the link between the surging numbers of black illegal immigrant homosexual muslim paedophile terrorists and increasing levels of cancer and inheritance tax. Thus, I will not accept as valid any other source offered here on NSG .

Or maybe people could develop some critical thinking skills.

Whoa, whoa, there little lady. Let's not talk crazy talk.

Go ahead. You know damn well your vandalism won't last long anyway and you'll have gone through the effort just to prove your point wrong.

Touche.

Whoa, whoa, there little lady. Let's not talk crazy talk.

I know it was a little out there, maybe too radical an idea:$

The Daily Mail and Daily Express are the only fair and unbiased sources I know of. Fox News might suffice on occasion, but its foreigness and liberal bias is blatant and at times quite offensive. No other sources are brave enough to tell us about the link between the surging numbers of black illegal immigrant homosexual muslim paedophile terrorists and increasing levels of cancer and inheritance tax. Thus, I will not accept as valid any other source offered here on NSG .

Sadly, at first I thought this was a serious post and I almost went crazy.

Sadly, at first I thought this was a serious post and I almost went crazy.

Almost? I thought you started from that destination!! :eek::p

Sadly, at first I thought this was a serious post and I almost went crazy.

Yeah, it wasn't until the black illegal immigrant homosexual muslim paedophile terrorists line that I figured it out.

Everyone knows that it's hispanic illegal immigrant metrosexual catholic pedophile gang members we really need to worry about.

Yeah, it wasn't until the black illegal immigrant homosexual muslim paedophile terrorists line that I figured it out.

Everyone knows that it's hispanic illegal immigrant metrosexual catholic pedophile gang members we really need to worry about.

Yeah. We definitely have to be worried about people who make it a point to sneak over the border just to do jobs no American wants to do for pay no American wants to accept just to have a chance to better their own lives a little bit. What kind of insane whackos do that?

Yeah. We definitely have to be worried about people who make it a point to sneak over the border just to do jobs no American wants to do for pay no American wants to accept just to have a chance to better their own lives a little bit. What kind of insane whackos do that?

You clearly missed the most important parts. Let me highlight them for you.

hispanic illegal immigrant metrosexual catholic pedophile gang members.

Sheesh. Way to totally miss the point.

Almost? I thought you started from that destination!! :eek::p

I should have said crazier.

Yeah. We definitely have to be worried about people who make it a point to sneak over the border just to do jobs no American wants to do for pay no American wants to accept just to have a chance to better their own lives a little bit. What kind of insane whackos do that?

Terrorists. If you enter a country you were not born in, you are a terrorist. Surely this scientific fact is axiomatic, even to the layperson? Next you'll be telling me the moon landings weren't faked, or that Prince Phillip didn't kill Princess Diana.

Terrorists. If you enter a country you were not born in, you are a terrorist. Surely this scientific fact is axiomatic, even to the layperson? Next you'll be telling me the moon landings weren't faked, or that Prince Phillip didn't kill Princess Diana.

Or that Jews don't bake their passover bread with the blood of Christian babies.

Pfft.

Many people here complain about being asked to provide sources for their claims. I won't delve into questions about what kind of academic training they've had...I'll just point out the two main arguments made in favour of NOT giving sources:

1) It's not up to me to do the work for you.
2) No one believes anyone's sources anyway.

The first point is an attempt to reverse the onus of burden of proof. It's absolutely ridiculous. You make a claim, and someone else needs to go research that claim in order to either prove or disprove it? Please someone come forth and defend this.

It's the second point I'm actually more interested in. You see...there appears to be some real confusion out there as to how one should use sources.

Blindly googling a matter, then posting random links hoping no one will read them has a good chance of succeeding...but when called on it, please don't start crying. Especially when your source contradicts what you've claimed.

Worse, is the apparent lack of understanding as to the worth of a particular source. Blogs are opinion pieces and pretty useless most of the time, unless they actually provide links to good sources. And by good source, I mean studies, research, peer-reviewed journal articles, statistics put out by reputable organisations etc.

It's as though the average poster at NSG honestly doesn't understand the difference between a blog entry and an actual scientific study.

To which I have to say, argument #2 is really your own problem. If you provide shit sources, don't expect rewards.

I DEMAND A SOURCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :soap:

I'm not sure why people are so adverse to [backing up their bullshit claims]. Especially on a political forum.
Because they like to think they're right?

I mean, come on, a lot of us will be here because we signed up for an online game which has you running a country, with no ill consequences, by decree. The game is just a massive ego trip, and to an extent the forums reflect that.

I'm on a different forum linked to a comicking service, and in the one political thread, we've had the issue of sources come up when one guy started ranting on about what Venezuelo-Zimbabwean socialist Obama was going to be. It'll come up wherever academic debate is practiced and where people know better than to take statements for granted.
Yeah, but how many places are there like that on the intertubes? Thanks to you, I now know of two.

I know it was a little out there, maybe too radical an idea:$
It was good for a laugh though. :D

You clearly missed the most important parts. Let me highlight them for you.

hispanic illegal immigrant metrosexual catholic pedophile gang members.

Sheesh. Way to totally miss the point.

RACIST! :mad: