Citation is important on a debate forum. It keeps opinions in check that would otherwise run rampant. But just how deep do we dig before we cite a source? What makes a source credible?
That depends on the source I suppose. For instance, there are some articles from the Huffington Post that are fairly legitimate, but I periodically see some that are so factually slanted that they clearly are obscuring the truth to grind a political ax. The same could be said for WND going the other way. If an article references a floating statistic or report or study without having a link to the basis of that assertion, I tend to get highly suspect. As for links people provide, I usually don't need to read them if the poster is going on some political partisan rant because they are usually so off the reservation, it doesn't matter.
Not much interest in this thread which makes me wounder if I did a bad job in presenting my questions, or if most that read this thread care more about opinions than facts and source citation. Or perhaps many feel that their opinions are in reality fact and just a matter of common sense? We have all seen posts that starts with "The fact is"... followed by an opinion that is not backed by a fact. Another one is when one states a fact, does not cite a source, then demands that those who do not agree prove them wrong.
Depends on the topic really. For most of the riff raff stuff some liberal leaning MSM site is usually enough, for basics Wiki usually works, but if the conversation is really worth having then getting reliable sources should usually include reputable sites, for statistics I'd go with government sites, as they are supposed to be official, then more topic specific sites that have numerous experts in that field within an organization, or the actual source of the discussion, the UN site is pretty decent to navigate if the UN is part of the discussion...
Unfortunately most cannot tell the difference between a conspiracy site that thinks science is some sort of black magic for the malevolent and a research paper published in a respected journal The evidence is very clear on that - just look at how many climate denials websites there are out there with the most ludicrous attempts at "science" and yet the crap is swallowed whole
Yet we know the climate change cult has relied upon inaccurate and sometimes falsified data to make their case. Can't imagine why anyone would question them and their theories...
I would love to see what you consider "inaccurate and falsified data" because I have yet to find a denialist site that is not riddled with inaccuracies - but I am willing, and I have made this offer more times than I can count to review any site you think supports your view on climate change for errors and misinformation and compare that with any your list of errors and misinformation from any site I choose
And here is the crux of the matter, this place demonstrates that people believe what they want to believe, there is very little data driven opinion change in this forum. People who post a bunch of nonsense, that gets rebutted, post the same thing a week later. I haven't seen anyone change sides on one of these sites, I haven't seen anyone say, "Geez, if those are the numbers, I'm convinced". Because this isn't a data driven process. Oh there is a data driven process at work, somewhere people have calculated that spending money promoting climate change denial will increase profits of the energy sector, that part is data driven. And the part about it getting warmer from increased CO2 in the atmosphere, that was originally data driven. But now it's Red v Blue. Only an abortion loving, tax the wealthy, Stalinist would oppose the invasion of Iraq, and only a useful idiot would oppose addressing climate change, a woman's right to choose, equal rights for gays or so we are told. I mean the GOP seeks to cut spending on Medicaid, while opposing any cost saving measures on Medicare, how does that compute? What we have is issues based on a strategy, and the strategy is nearly perfect, elections are incredibly close, because each side has assembled a convoluted series of positions. Mostly driven by the GOP, which is the natural minority party, but they have come up with some wicked good schemes to get to 50%. And the Democrats have responded in kind, after taking a beating, and the Democrats are good at it, (that's because the smartest people gravitate to Liberal thinking, and we can out think the GOP, and beat them at their game) While The GOP chased the racist vote, and dominate the white male vote, they by their own strategy, left millions of votes on the table, and the Democrats have been registering them and collecting them and there are a lot of people who will be life long Democrats, and they are young. Meanwhile, life long Republicans have already lived long lives, and are dying off. It will be interesting to watch the people here change when the GOP pivots, and seeks to cut into Democratic demographics that they have up until now ignored.
You make some good points. I have had my mind changed here in the last 10 years, but I am an anomaly as I am here to learn and understand that I will not change any minds. If one is feels that they are right and their mind is made up, they will not be able to see anything beyond their predetermined conclusions.
If I read something from a source that I have complete confidence in, like a Paul Krugman column, then it makes sense that it's probably true. And there are things that I believe anyone who hangs out in a political forum should know. I don't feel the need to post links to things like Clinton's surpluses, if someone doubts them, they can look it up.
Information on the website may be true or not - it's not so important. The truth can only be found after learning who has interest to post this information on the website.
I break it down like this 1-many times what I post is just my opinion so no citation is needed... 2-other times I don't bother because anyone who doubts my facts that are of a ridiculously easy/obvious nature, they can do their own simple search to confirmation...some forum members are childish in their demands for citations on routine knowledge...Me-"the sun is damn hot", Opponent-"Prove it, where is your citation or it's not true" , a ridiculous scenario that I've encountered a number of times... 3-wiki is not a reliable source for citations even when it's right, but I use it for links to more reliable sources... 4-when the debate becomes contentious with detailed and obscure data I'll link to a citation...
I don't believe you have to dig very deep at all. Citing somebody's else's opinion diminishes your own opinion, especially if it comes from one of the 'professional' opinion generators. Even when it comes to 'facts', only 10% of scientific results are reproducible, and that's per: http://www.jove.com/blog/2012/05/03...e-articles-are-reproducible-what-is-happening I certainly don't mind a cite-less opinion as long as somebody states why they feel that way.
If I see something interesting or controvercial on the internet, or hear it around the hangar, here is what I generally do; I wait until I get home, I crack open a beer, and I check that story against at least three unbiased, non-politically-affiliated web resources. Sometimes four. There is SO much bull$hit on the internet anymore!
I try for at least two independent sources. Also (and this costs me $$), if there is a book or books on the subject, I check the author to the extent I can &, if I can afford it, buy the book/books. Another thing to do is what I call bibliography mining. A lot on non-fiction books have bibliographies and/or footnotes. I try to check those sources too. The problem with this, other than the cost, is you can wind up with books @$$-deep on a tall basketball player.
Funny, you could say the same thing about the Bible. Or the Constitution. What we ARE is based on what we WERE. Learning and thought are neither illegal nor irrelevant, at least in some circles.
I like digging sources , what i usually do is finding articles / papers that contradict source's claims and examine their validity . On things i am well informed i trust sources i know .
Good point. I follow the college rule of finding three reputable sources before stating a fact. The problem is that what one considers a "reputable source" is subjective. I try to offset this by not using Fox News for conservative sources nor The Huffington Post as a liberal source. The obvious reason is conservatives are likely to reject a Huffington Post source and liberals are likely to reject a Fox News source.
