Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proper standards of evidence and referencing
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 1 of 8 (206929)
05-11-2005 4:32 AM


I had thought that there was a previous topic about this but I can't find it anymore.
What is the right sort of level of evidence that we should be bringing to the scientific debates on tis site? This question has re-entered my mind because of the discussions which I had with Jerry Don Bauer on the now closed 'Intelligent design in universities' thread.
Both Mammuthus and I provided Jerry with references to the primary scientific literature, which I would consider pretty much standard for a good scientific reference.
Jerry raised the fair point that the papers I referenced were not all available in full over the internet, at least without subscriptions to the journals, and consequently not easily accessable by many people.
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?
Jerry had a number of other arguments which I was not so convinced by. He suggested in an exchange with Mammuthus-
JDB writes:
Nah...I think that we will observe Internet debate etiquette. Bring your argument in your own words, cut and paste the relevant sections of the papers that support your argument.
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?
Jerry himself seems to prefer links to websites, and I think that this is a problematic issue. I have complained before about the highly unreliable nature of the content of websites (especially the NMSR one on the Nylon Bug, but I digress). You can probably find some site on the web to back up even the most ludicrous of assertions but it doesn't constitute any sort of evidence.
Of course some sites are better than others, we might lend more credence to a site hosted at a .edu .gov or .ac address, some of us might trust Talk.Origins over Answers in Genesis. But both for TO and AIG they give references to the primary literature to support their views and the only real way to check whether the papers actually do support them is to go to the primary literature.
This isn't intended to be any sort of attack on Jerry, its just that my debate with him threw some of these questions into sharp relief in my mind.
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 don't know the answers to these. My own personal feelings tend towards the draconian - that the appropriate level is reference to the primary scientific literature, that references to text books may be reasonable if your interlocutor is new to the field but should be avoided if possible and that the availability of the material should not be a substantial concern. I will endeavour to find online material but I won't refrain from a cogent line of argument simply because not everybody will neccessarily be able to access all the relevant material.
I would be interested in anybody's views on this matter.
TTFN,
WK
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-11-2005 05:47 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Mammuthus, posted 05-11-2005 5:34 AM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2005 5:34 AM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 05-11-2005 8:58 AM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 7 by mick, posted 05-11-2005 2:10 PM Wounded King has replied

  
AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 8 (206930)
05-11-2005 4:33 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
AbE: Darn alias selection
This message has been edited by AdminBen, Wednesday, 2005/05/11 06:40 PM

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 3 of 8 (206943)
05-11-2005 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wounded King
05-11-2005 4:32 AM


Don't lower the standards
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wounded King, posted 05-11-2005 4:32 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 4 of 8 (206944)
05-11-2005 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wounded King
05-11-2005 4:32 AM


I think it really depends on the context.
Since Jerry claims to be doing science, and is prepared to make clams about what is or is not in the scientific literature it is reasonable to expect him to be aware of the relevant papers - especially on simple issues like the ones discussed - before being supplied with references.
If dealing with a non-scientist who says something on the lines of "I don't know of evidence for..." or "is there evidence for...?" then I suggest that quotes should be produced where practical, even though their value is limited where the paper itself is not conveniently available.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wounded King, posted 05-11-2005 4:32 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 05-11-2005 5:54 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 5 of 8 (206949)
05-11-2005 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
05-11-2005 5:34 AM


I should qualify what I say...I agree with what you say here...if someone "asks" if there is evidence for a specific claim (i.e. judge does this regularly in the biology forums) this is fine. One should provide references and explain what is contained within each. If someone is asking for evidence, we should be accomodating and as Wounded King mentions, where possible, try to use open access journals. However,is someone "tells" me there is no evidence or that a given scientific hypothesis is wrong without supporting this claim and then goes on to ignore the evidence that is provided..then all bets are off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2005 5:34 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 6 of 8 (207015)
05-11-2005 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wounded King
05-11-2005 4:32 AM


Hi Wound,
Haven't read beyond your post yet, maybe others have addressed this already, but I wanted to give my own response to this:
Wounded King writes:
Jerry had a number of other arguments which I was not so convinced by. He suggested in an exchange with Mammuthus-
JDB writes:
Nah...I think that we will observe Internet debate etiquette. Bring your argument in your own words, cut and paste the relevant sections of the papers that support your argument.
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?
Jerry has actually expressed precisely what we'd like to do here. The Forum Guidelines aren't sufficiently explicit about this, and an update to the Forum Guidelines has been discussed among moderators, and it is only awaiting my time to carry it out.
I don't think inaccessible articles should be off limits for citation here, but in such circumstances I think more substantial excerpts than is normally the case should be provided.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wounded King, posted 05-11-2005 4:32 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 7 of 8 (207137)
05-11-2005 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wounded King
05-11-2005 4:32 AM


Wounded king,
I believe that most publishers of scientific articles permit licensed users (i.e. University students, faculty, personal subscribers) to make copies of an article and distribute them as long as they are for personal use.
I used to work at a large scientific publishers - as far as I know they would have no problem with you providing pdfs of one of their articles to an opponent in a debate.
You would not be permitted to post a link to a pdf that is hosted on a server not owned by the publisher. but you would be permitted to send a single copy of a pdf by email to somebody who you are debating on a web forum related to biological issues.
Obviously, you can't send pdfs to anybody who asks for them. But if your opponent complains that s/he cannot access an article that is central to your argument, it is within you rights to send a copy to that person.
Mick
added in edit: As far as I know, you are almost always permitted to reproduce scientific data that may be central to your argument. if the paper you want to cite contains a table of data you can reproduce that data to your heart's content. You CANNOT just scan the table and post the image on the web. But you can extract data from the table and post your own analysis of that data freely.
In practice, this means that you can reproduce published scientific results, as long as you don't simply copy the data tables and graphs from an article. Instead, extract the data, generate your own graphs and tables, and post those.
This message has been edited by mick, 05-11-2005 02:19 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wounded King, posted 05-11-2005 4:32 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Wounded King, posted 05-13-2005 5:05 AM mick has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 8 of 8 (207653)
05-13-2005 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by mick
05-11-2005 2:10 PM


Thanks for that Mick, its another option certainly. I think that ideally with an online forum like this all the lurkers and other participants in a thread should have the same chance to access stuff, otherwise it is going to get a bit insular if only 2 of you have any idea what you are talking about. But certainly if someone is using the unavailability of full text as a stalling tactic it is one resolution.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mick, posted 05-11-2005 2:10 PM mick has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024