quote:
I appreciate this problem and when possible I try to reference papers from open access journal such as PLOS or the BiomedCentral suite of journals or from the PubMed Central archive of full text papers. Should we avoid putting froward the paper that best demonstrates a particular area of research simply because it is not generally available?
While the papers may not be accessible to all people, at least easily, one can do a summary of the main points and then leave it up to those who have interest to either purchase the papers or run down to the library and copy them.
If one is truly interested in the subject or are claiming that ID is right and evolution is wrong or some such nonsense then it is up to the person making the claim to do the freaking research.
Ignorance of evolution (or any science) is not support for ID or creationism.
quote:
Now I am not familiar with this particular ettiquette and it certainly isn't something covered in the forum guidelines here, although I have no doubt it may operate on a number of forums. Is there any reason why we should accede to someone elses particular preference for a form of reference?
This was a plain evasion tactic. Jerry claimed he was going to "hit me with science" yet he demonstrated both a complete unfamiliarity with the literature coupled with a refusal to even look up the papers himself. I will also note, when I summarized several papers in my own words (as he asked) he complained that I was summarizing the papers in my own words and he did not believe me...yet he still refused to access the papers himself..some of which were even open access and two clicks away with a mouse.
Again, if you are claiming ID or creationism is right, you have no excuse for not knowing about the scientific literature or refusing to find out about specific points related to an arguement....ones complete ignorance of a subject is hardly compelling evidence for their position.
Ignorance of evolution (or any science) is not support for ID or creationism.
quote:
What are people's feelings on the appropriate standard of reference to provide support for arguments on a forum such as this? Is there any way to enforce such standards? How far should we be prepared to lower our standards in order to engage in a debate?
I think the standard should be draconian. Either you are familiar with the subject you are debating or you are not. Claiming that journals are hard to access, the dog ate my homework, I don't feel like reading the paper are just pathetic excuses and a tactic to avoid debate..in fact, such excuses are a clear indicator that the person has no clue what they are talking about in the first place. Some people here equate random opinion with methodological naturalism.
If one does not have the sufficient background to understand the debate, then one should not presume to make statements of certitude regarding the veractiy of or support for scientific theories. I think it is as simple as that.
This where people like Jerry (and he is not alone) fail. They demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the subjects they are debating (witness his contention that genes are the same as genomes and that both are evidence of devolution) and couple this deficiency with arrogant claims about "doing science". Yet, mysteriously he seems to have no access to a lab or a library with scientific journals. He is not the first to do this.
But I see no reason to lower the standard of science on this board just because science is difficult to understand or that not all articles are free. If you are committed to "finding holes" in the theory of evolution, or claiming evidence for ID/creationism you should make sure the "holes" are not in your own knowledge about the science.
again, ignorance of evolution (or any science) is not support for ID or creationism.
™ Version 4.2
