Sf Posting Etiquette, Rules Interpretation

Science- knowledge acquired by systematic study and experience: Observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Scholarship- demonstration of above knowledge.

Penalties (for aggravated distraction from science and scholarship here in order of escalating response)- peer criticism, suspension of access, banning.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What we make it?

Certainly, this is supposed to be a place of science and scholarship, but basic scholarship and academic integrity seem to be on the list of things that are too much to ask of people.

I don't mean that to sound so harsh. For instance, I know that some folks post from their phones, and having done that with my BlackBerry, I can say it's a pain in the ass to write the kind of posts I do when sitting in front of a computer.

However, I would ask people to consider a seemingly simple issue: sources.

Question: What do you think would be the impact if we required some manner of formal citation (e.g., MLA, Harvard, Chicago-Turabian, &c.)?​

Presently, we have a very lightweight citation regime, and most days, even that is too much to ask.

Yet, beyond plagiarism concerns, there is a matter of courtesy.

• If I simply provide a hyperlink to my quote, what do people do if that link breaks?

• If I simply provide an author name, what should people do if that person has written many books and articles?​

The bottom line is that people are welcome to challenge my sources and interpretations thereof. And anyone who wants to look further can do so. Did the link break? Well, you also know what you're looking for—author, title, date, &c. Do you want to know more about context? Well, this is the book I used, and here is the basic information necessary to find it.

Yes, it is sometimes laborious to include such information from eight sources, plus additional material not cited but considered in a given post. And, yes, sometimes it's a pain in the ass to repeatedly cite page numbers, but—

And the fighting words issue goes on, including Justice Scalia cracking a Quaker joke. But Ms. Phelps is definitely confident; yes, m'lady, you'll go with unprotected because that's apparently what the precedent says. And, indeed, as her discussion with the Court continues, she insists on Mr. Snyder as a public figure, for having "enter[ed] the public discussion" (33) because he "went to the public airways multiple times in the days immediately before and immediately after" the funeral (32). Justice Alito called out the issue of Snyder as a public figure (34), and Ms. Phelps actually stumbled over the course of her answers, attempting to refocus the Court's broader consideration back toward Mr. Snyder himself, to the point that Chief Justice Roberts asserted himself in the exchange.​

—not only do people know which Supreme Court document to look at in order to find the episode I described, they don't have to search through every damn page when they might be reading it in a different context.

For me, it's not asking too much. For others, it obviously is.

But if we are to realize any significant aspect of Sciforums as a place of scholarship and science, people will need to come around and have confidence in their sources, to search for the real issues in a discussion and not simply resort to ego-fighting.

I mean, right. So how many pages of a study or brief or whatever should I have to read through in order to figure out what someone is talking about? There's always room for, "I remember a study I heard about once ...." Who knows? Someone might remember the same thing, and be able to find the resource. But it's not something to invest the whole of the argument in.

"Try Google, moron!" is not an appropriate way to support an assertion.

"Karen Armstrong" is not necessarily enough to go on. I mean, sure, we could probably discount the book about Buddha, or the short history of Islam, if we're talking about Christianity. But would that be Through the Narrow Gate, The First Christian, The Gospel According to Woman, Holy war, The End of Silence, A History of God, Jerusalem, In the Beginning, The Battle for God, or The Bible? I mean, just for starters. Or was it a magazine article?

And so on, and so on.

I mean, just as long as we're talking about etiquette, scholarship, &c.

We have a long way to go before Sciforums becomes a place of science and scholarship. Science can be unsettling when it strips away our myths, and the burdens of scholarship are, observably, more than most around here want to carry.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

sciforums is the perfect place to observe,identify,describe,investigate,
you can definatly do systematic study and come up with a definitive explanation of the phenomena...
the subject matter is diverse and expansive..
the subjects are more entertaining than a lab mouse...
IOW..
don't kill the lab mice!

seems rather generic..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what about directing someone to read the work cited page of a source is that acceptable??? because I remember when way back when in an argument with some righties of Universal health care when I directed them to the work cited page to find where my source got its information they threw a hissy fit and from my point of view were demanding me to find and post every single source from the works cited page for them something which because well it hopefully shut them up I did

 

Investment and Returns

Well ... it depends on how specific one is. If you're telling them to pursue a specific point of a specific source, that's one thing.

Leaving them to go fish is leaving them to go fish.

If they're pitching a hissy fit about every single source and so on because they can't put two and two together—e.g., the extract says the CBO, and they can't figure out that you're pointing to the works cited so they can see which CBO report it is—that's their own problem.

But with those people, it's probably worth the investment of a couple extra seconds to make your own point more clear. Remember, as far as they're concerned, whatever they can invent to complain about in order to dodge the point is your fault. That's how they see it.

So people need to ask themselves basic resource allocation questions: How do I want to spend the time and effort? Writing a better argument so my opponents will look even more desperate when they pitch a fit, or pitching a fit because my opponents pitched a fit?

Remember how much people rely on egotism around here.

Always remember how foolish it looks.

At least, when you're calculating the potential returns on your resource investment options.

 

You forgot the third option, which is "write to a reasonable standard, and summarily ignore fit-pitchers."

The key to this kind of discourse is to be secure with the standard to which you're arguing. If people respond by undercutting the standard, you just ignore them. If people respond by demanding a higher one, you just write them off. It's the expectation that everybody else adhere to one's standard that causes all the grief. If one accepts that any given standard is going to be too high for certain audiences and too low for others - and so selects a standard that squares with one's audience preferences - then things go by much more smoothly. Although, yes, this does require accepting that one can't convince everyone of anything.

 

there are alot of under 18 users here also..some have only learned to argue, and have not yet learned how to argue..these kids need taught..(hell,i still need taught..)

its like going to a science convention full of teens and preteens..(never been to one..)
only here you hear ALL their opinions..

which is why i suggest elite forums only accessible to those who are invited..
let the rest of the board be for sorting out who needs to be invited..

 

Age has nothing to do with it per se. There are plenty of younger people that can argue/debate very well, and many older people that can't.

It certainly seems you still need to be taught.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ah, the logical fallacy of using an example that you have even admitted to having no experience of?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm guessing you won't want people who write poor English or use logical fallacies in these elite forums?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

true

know any good teachers?

HEY at least i admited it..
fallacy or not..you understood it..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

its not about form..form can be taught..
those who seek understanding don't always spell rite..

Admin question;
is there a way to be able to post more than three smilies?

 

If a multitude of emoticons fall short of expressing the full magnitude of your exuberance, you might try (or trot) out some poignant words: We have a much higher limit on them, and there is an almost limitless supply of singular specimens.

 

Re: etiquette- An invitation to invite is here -> Site Feedback/How to Invite Discussions To Other Threads

 

When I told my teenage son that I had joined here, he laughed and told me it was a troll site. (Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

A big group of people is always going to have a few really unique individuals within its ranks. Each of us has our own reasons for being here, just as each moderator has his/her personal reasons for doing that. Yes, some of us may not care much for some others of us, if there is an "ignore" feature (I haven't looked for that, myself) than one should avail oneself of same as/if needed.

Tolerance brings diversity, and from diversity springs novelty and invention. These are all good things, IMHO. I have been observing "trolls" for a decade now. One of my conclusions is that it is very difficult to know whether some folks are trolls or just people who express themselves in a manner that others are not used to.

The difference between a troll "bait" post and a regular persons "naive" post is sometimes quite difficult to tell. Sometimes a "moderator" acts very much like a "troll".

I think it would be best for all concerned if we could all just relax a bit and not pick on other people who are different from us and do not act the same as we do all of the time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well it is, I can provide the evidence necessary, as I seem to be in the category you deem..........inferior. Stereotypes aren't a very intelligent way to categorize people, some are true and if they are they only apply to a certain percentage of the group in question. I am in the the group, in fact the low end, being 14........

If nobody teaches will one be taught?

Reading a substantial quality of phenomenal books and publications did wonders to me. Watching lectures by great professors is also very helpful to my life. They are not limited to those I have identified, there are many effective ways to learn, it is a big world out there, life is a learning process, there are opportunities in each and everyday. By natural selection and obtaining knowledge is how civilizations evolve.

I am also sure there are probably education professionals amongst the members of this forum. I am sure some of them are at least competent

Use of colorful and exuberant descriptions eliminates the need for any emoticons. The English language can do wonders.

Well this thread did point out a valid point......trolls. That is why for science research, I use PNAS, PubMed, Royal Society, MIT ( also Yale, Havard .etc ) OpenCourseware, buy DVDs of lectures from distinguished professors .etc Reliable sources.

No offense intended but people with the same mindset as you won't take me seriously so I just don't post on science threads. I would probably be "critiqued" by "critics" that haven't even read my entire post yet.

Although I know there are members here that doesn't have the opinion and are more open.

 

My friends told me the exact same thing.......its a common conception amongst most people my age group.

 

refresh my memory..what are we talking about?

 

That is our subject....

 

i said 'some' as opposed to most or all..

 

Oh.......my bad. There are people I know that uses words like some and all synonymously, a lot of people say some, while meaning all, so I assumed. My apologies, sorry that I got too rash and made assumptions.

That is one of the faults I need improvement on. I really hate it when people think everyone in my age group are dumb, so this subject doesn't really help with my fault.

I need to be taught as well, so it seems.