Verifying and citing sources

[Scoutfish]

You ever read something, and suddenly have a thought hit you? No, not really an epithany, because I didn't suddenly see something with clarity. Matter of fact, what I suddenly saw was actually the beginning of a string of more questions.

 

So, somebody types a statement in a thread and is asked to cite a source that backs that statement up.Or they list a source that emphacizes or supports their own arguement, and are asked for more clarity by listing other sources to back up that source.

 

 

But here's the thing: What good is a source? Really. What good does it do to provide a source?

 

I mean, I could list the Holy Bible as a source to back up my arguements about what is moral, yet, a peerson from another religion can equally cite their own bible( for lack of a better word) as an equally credible source, And how do you prove yours is more credible? Because you yourself belive it more?

 

That's like argueing that dairy farmers say milk is better than green tea as opposed to a bunch of Chinese farmers who say green tea is better .

 

It still comes down to personal feelings and beliefs.

 

And we all know that a poll can be entirely and completely manipulated by who is polled, what the questions are, but more importantly, what questions are ommitted.

 

Then take science for example: Science used to absolutely declare the world was flat. Science! You can't argue science now can you?

 

Then there are times that people can cite themselves as the source. For example: A Vermont Cub Scout Pack goes camping in January in 4 for of snow.

 

Everybody has a blast and can't wait to go again.

 

A Fla scouter staes that the weather was too extreme for that pack to have went.

 

Neither can cite a specific source to back their side. But both are correct in the fact that the Vermont pack lives in that weather every day anyways and are used to it. Plus, being part of that pack, the poster knows from personal experience that nobody in the pack complained or had issues.

 

On the other side, the Fla scouter know that his warm weather climte pack gets miserable in temps under 40 degrees because thay are just not used to such weather.

 

And again, sources are only as credible as those who believe or feel the same way.

 

Look at Global Warming. The "expert" scientific data gathering , fact considering, no playing around ..scientists cannot agree on what is causing it, what is lessing it, or if it even exists.

 

The Bible is only as reliable as those who share that faith or belife and is no more proof than the bible( again, for lack of better word) of any other religion.

 

Matter of fact, religion itself should actually take away from credibility as a souce as it only means that a bunch of like minded people agreed on something. Like minded meaning they only listen to orvrecognize those who share their own views. Which in itself is promoting ignorance( yes, that includes me too).

 

No,I do not mean that meanly or with spite, but it's true.

 

"What's your source?"

 

"My source is the Webster dictionary."

 

"Well, my encyclopedia Britannica says your source is wrong."

 

Same as AA versus the Southern Baptist Coalition. Both can cite sources, but the only true proof either has for it's side is:

 

"That's how we feel!"

 

Even in BSA citing a source means nothing. If you are predisposed to not agree, you will find fault in, and disregard the source.

 

G2SS: Is it dead set or just general guides that apply to "most" situations.

 

Insignia Guide for uniforms. Says "should and should not" but never says "must, have to, required to or no choice but.."

 

Everybody recognizes you cannot add to requirements, but each has his/her own version of what adding menas: Boyscout handbook: is it part of the uniform if not mentioned in IG? Is requireing it considered adding to requirements.

 

Cite your source all you want, those who agree will still agree, those who don't , still won't.

 

So, why bother asking somebody to cite a source whan in all likelyhood, you will find fault with and completely blow off the source as being non credible.

 

 

All info gathered in this post supported by random anonymous non solicited opinions in Facebook!

[packsaddle]

You actually went a step further than your own claims and contended something with no support whatsoever when you wrote, "Science used to absolutely declare the world was flat. Science! You can't argue science now can you?"

 

Wrong on both counts. The flat earth myth does remain one of those vexing myths that for some reason, we can't seem to kill. But you should examine the logic of your contention (or rather, the lack of logic) because if what you claim is true, we'd still know absolutely that the earth is flat. It is because we CAN and DO argue science that such myths are discredited. It is because we don't actually know much of anything 'absolutely'.

 

The Greeks had the spherical earth concept figured out long before the work of Copernicus. Nearly all medieval scholars were in accord with the spherical earth view, (OK, the Catholic Church doesn't qualify as scientific authority) long before Copernicus, because there just wasn't any evidence to cast doubt on the empirical observations on which the spherical earth was based. Religious scripture does not qualify as scientific evidence.

Moreover, 'science' rarely declares anything as absolute. An example of something that IS considered settled truth is the second law of thermodynamics. But scientists would really like to see someone produce evidence to overturn that and other ideas which we 'think' right now. (Don't hold your breath) Remember, the purpose of an experiment IS to DISprove an idea thought to be correct.

 

The second count is wrong in that in fact, anyone can argue with science. You supplied a splendid example of this yourself in the topic of global climate change. It seems that politicians whose grasp of the ideas is minimal or even persons who are completely ignorant of the topic feel just fine with questioning the scientific consensus. And that is OK. Just remember that in doing so, these arguments will receive the same brutal scrutiny that any other idea will receive if any scientist disagrees. So bring on those arguments. Just bring some evidence as well.

 

As for the rest of your post, I concur that matters of opinion are simply that. If BSA can't write clearly or if BSA for some reason chooses to write unclearly, then there obviously will be conflicting opinions about interpretation. Kind of like those religious scriptures...."The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together."

FYI, the authority for that quote is TheScout.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Scoutfish]

So bring on those arguments. Just bring some evidence as well.

 

That is my whole point! What evidence? And what would back it up?

 

As for science, again my point: People bring what they think is "absolute and final" proof. But it is only absolute and final if they decide to let if be .

 

Yeah, science says this, and a few years later, it changes it's story and says that instead.

 

Flat earth, sun obits the earth, the heart is actually the body's control center. etc..

 

In another post, somebody claims that God is the ultimate authority of what is moral.

 

Truth be told, I follow the same God, but I wouldn't make that arguement to a person who beleives in another god because I might as well use Star Trek as my source of ultimate authority.

 

You get me on that? I can argue the King James bible all day long, but that would mean absolutely ZILCH to somebody who uses and follows the Qur'an.

 

Same thing for me: If somebody cites the Qur'an as the reasoning as to why their claim is true..it means no more to me than if Mickey Mouse wrote it if I do not follow the Qur'an.

 

 

I might respect their view on something, but their source has no credibility to me.

 

Overall, my point was this: If half of all the scientists in the world stood behind anything I claimed as to be fact anf to support my claims...it would only be worth as much as tyhose who trust or believe those scientists.

 

But if you actually believe or trusted the other half of the scientists, then I would still not be able to credibly support the claims I made.

 

That make sense to you?

 

My point is this: People can cite sources and authority on any subject matter, but that authority or cited source is credible if that source is trusted or believed.

[packsaddle]

Scoutfish, I do get you. You might enjoy this survey:

http://people-press.org/report/528/

 

The first table has scientists ranked just below the military and teachers in public regard for their contribution to society. Scientists are ranked above doctors and engineers and others. Lawyers and business executives are ranked last. Guess which ones get paid the most?

 

But my point in all this is that if one wishes to engage in science, there actually IS a way to find agreement that is not based simply on desire to believe. It is based on common experience and observation and evidence. Because this approach is available to anyone, I consider science a way to bring people together. This is unlike religion, the purpose of which isn't to bring people together according to TheScout. Over the years that I have been repeating this statement by TheScout, not a single respondent has ever disagreed. It's interesting...the things we agree on...

[Eagledad]

>>But my point in all this is that if one wishes to engage in science, there actually IS a way to find agreement that is not based simply on desire to believe. It is based on common experience and observation and evidence. Because this approach is available to anyone, I consider science a way to bring people together.

[packsaddle]

If that's Wesley's approach, then it's not only circular reasoning, it's facile circular reasoning and nothing at all like science. Wesley's statement is NOT something I would accept as profound.

 

To me, one important difference between science and religion (which is relevant to this thread) is that we are likely to find peaceful solutions to scientific disagreements.

Whereas the world is littered with graves resulting from religious differences, sadly continuing.

 

I agree that ethics/morality are important concepts for science. I disagree that ethical or moral judgments must be based in scripture or originate in the supernatural.

 

To return to Scoutfish's topic (and hopefully get it back on track), I'm not sure exactly what his argument was...evidently we were in more agreement than I thought. However, although it may seem this way reading the editorial page or in these threads (which is, perhaps, why he started this particular thread), I would not make a blanket claim that everything is simply a matter of opinion. It isn't. Scientists aren't immune from opinion. But they do have the means to self-correct for opinions that are unsupported or contradicted by evidence.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

"Science" never said the world was flat. Eratosthenes measured the size of the earth to an amazing degree abotu 240 BCE.

 

At best, a scientific statement about the shape of the earth would have to be "unknown" until one model had sufficient evidence, and a flat earth never had that. People could see that ships' hulls disappeared over the ocean horizon before their masts, and that an eclipse of the moon was probably the earth's shadow and that shadow was always round.

 

Mr. Question Man:

"Dear Mr. Question Man; I know the earth is round, like a ball. This means people must be walking on earth upside-down. Why then don't these people fall off?"

 

Mr. Q-Man: "You have stated a common misconception -- people are falling off all the time."