Must I Really Reference Every Nook And Cranny?

[Graviphoton]

Is it really necessery with absolutely everything i say? Its just that it gets tiresome from my behalf, when i want to just talk about the subjects without any other ditsraction. I understand i should have some references, and i will make a point with that. But no offense to mooey, but he's draining the utter crap out me.

 

He quite literally wants a reference to nearly anything i say.

[mooeypoo]

Is it really necessery with absolutely everything i say? Its just that it gets tiresome from my behalf, when i want to just talk about the subjects without any other ditsraction. I understand i should have some references, and i will make a point with that. But no offense to mooey, but he's draining the utter crap out me.

 

He quite literally wants a reference to nearly anything i say.

 

If I say "It is said that the sky are blue", I may be able to get off without referencing.

 

If I say "It is said the universe is flat", I will not.

 

Your claims are quite unconventional, even if they are based on hypotheses we've heard before. Referencing will actually *help you* make your case, specifically when you seem to not differ between unproven hypotheses, factual theories and thought experiments.

 

Many of the premises you raise are not factual, and they have competing ideas that have the same validity to them, because the subject is either philosophical or yet-to-be-decided.

 

Referencing is not just important, it's the scientific thing to do, and it allows us to analyze your theory in the correct context.

 

On top of that, generalizations are never good, specifically in science, and saying "It is said" is a generalization. In most of your postulations it's more like "Some people say, some don't", and if some say and some don't, you shouldn't ignore those who *dont* just because you want to.

 

It's unscientific. It's against forum policy.

 

~moo

 

 

p.s: Not that it matters, but I am a "SHE", not a "HE". There are women in science, too.

[Graviphoton]

Well, you see, that's he rub isn't it. If i was in the company of other scientists, i would be able to get off with a lot of things i say, because i am a scientist myself, and the knowledge i have, (including most things i am asked for references to) are in fact mainstream science anyway.

 

So my very presence here will continue to be drained because of a lack of knowledge on your behalf?

[ydoaPs]

I've heard it said that the earth is 6000 years old.

 

Well, you see, that's he rub isn't it. If i was in the company of other scientists, i would be able to get off with a lot of things i say, because i am a scientist myself, and the knowledge i have, (including most things i am asked for references to) are in fact mainstream science anyway.

 

If you think there aren't scientists that post here, you're sorely mistaken. What sort of work do you do, anyway? Your profile says you're a "physics student."

[mooeypoo]

No, you wouldn't be.

 

They would tell you just what we do - that this is an appeal to authority, and it is a logical fallacy. Being a scientist is not enough "proof" in making a claim true.

 

It's not about lack of knowledge, as you could see in many other threads, and it's not only mine, as you could also see in many other threads. It's about rational debate and avoiding logical fallacies, which you tend to use quite a lot.

 

There is a reason why your threads degrade to an endless "what do you mean" discussion. Your tendency to take nonproven hypotheses and ignore their counterpart hypotheses is present in most of the other threads you opened.

 

I suggest, again, that you read the forum policy.

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

YouDad

 

Simply studying Classical Physics, and Quantum Mechanics. My personal area of interest, as you will have guessed, is the theory of cognitive awareness.

 

Mooey

 

I can give references to a lot of things, but not everything. A lot of my knowledge is based upon an archive i have learned over the years. So forgive me if i cannot be at the beckoned call of providing sources.

 

If my word in many cases are not good enough, then maybe my time here is wrong spent. Saying that, maybe i shouldn't spend time here at all.

[mooeypoo]

I can give references to a lot of things, but not everything

 

If you can't reference it, it's not proven, it's hypothesis. If you go around the forums you will see many times people saying something like "I am not sure where I heard this from, but A B C and therefore, I think that X Y Z". That is okay. You don't have to know everything. You just need to be honest enough to state so.

 

I know you said that "If hawkins says so, I believe him" But I think this is the difference between you and me, and probably some others. I wouldn't just "believe him", I would want to see what and how he reached this conclusion. This is why the scientific community requests vigorous evidence for claims.

 

Your word isn't enough just like mine isn't enough, just like Dawkins' word isn't enough, juist like Einstein's word isn't enough, just like Hawkins' word isn't enough.

 

Hawkins, Dawkins, Einstein and others needed to prove and support their claims. If they didn't, their claims were considered postulations that are either based on partial-thought-experiments or non based at all.

 

They were honest enough, however, to classify their claims into the group of *THEORY*, Postulation, hypothesis, or opinion.

 

Opinions are interesting. We can debate opinions, and we do all the time in the forums. But we don't take them as fact, no matter how "nice" they are, or how much the person with that opinion loves his own opinion.

 

If your goal is to state your opinion without us analyzing it in light of evidence, then you are in the wrong place. If you don't want to allow us the tools to analyze your theories, then you are in the wrong place. If you are going to get annoyed and defensive every time we ask for proof or explanation for why you state what you state so we can analyze in light of opinion or fact, then you are in the wrong place. If you claim your opinion to be a fact, then you are in the wrong place.

 

Read the forum policy.

You might be in the wrong place.

 

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

Not proven from my behalf. BUT IT DOESN'T NOT MAKE IT proven.

 

This is what you are getting mixed up. For instance, i know it has been proven that the electron must spin faster than light, in fact, all fermions need to spin faster than light. Want a reference? Can't give you one.

 

Does this make it a non-proven fact... come on...

[mooeypoo]

I didn't say it was non proven, I said it wasn't proven.

 

It might be proven, but it wasn't YET.

 

The burden on proof is on the person making the claim. Hence on you.

 

Own up to it, or consider if you are in the right place. You seem to still haven't read the forum policies.

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

Lost me. It either is proven or it isn't. Saying it wasn't, and yet, not saying it wasn't non-proven, seems schizogeny to me.

 

My policies, my way of thinking and conducting my work, has been very consistent. I certainly make a distinction between a computer or a troll, or a mere idiot wanting to come in, post one thing and never answer the post again.

 

Therego, i have no reason to read the rules, because commonsense indicates proper behaviour, and how to conduct a conversation. Something which i haven't failed at so far, other than idiosyncracies.

[mooeypoo]

Lost me. It either is proven or it isn't. Saying it wasn't, and yet, not saying it wasn't non-proven, seems schizogeny to me.

 

My policies, my way of thinking and conducting my work, has been very consistent. I certainly make a distinction between a computer or a troll, or a mere idiot wanting to come in, post one thing and never answer the post again.

 

Therego, i have no reason to read the rules, because commonsense indicates proper behaviour, and how to conduct a conversation. Something which i haven't failed at so far, other than idiosyncracies.

 

It might not be "Unprov'able" but it IS unproven yet.

 

You need to substantiate your claim on facts, and according to the degree of validity of those facts, it becomes proven.

 

When we say that your claim is unproven, we mean it's lacking evidence.

 

It might be proven in the future. But it isn't yet. You have the burden of proof, which means you need to prove it. Supply the proof. Specifically if we ask you to. Saying that "we should know this" is not helping anyone. We don't. We ask. You need to prove.

 

That, really, is part of the process of peer review.

 

You keep ignoring it, and it's very unprofessional and unscientific. It's not the way things are done, and - again - it's not the way these forums operate.

 

Your policies have been very consistent, I agree, in that you rarely supply references or proof to your postulations, and you expect people to accept them - or the logic on which they're based - out of nothing.

 

That is not the way things work here.

 

Apparently, your common sense failed you here, because - again - what you are doing is against forum policy. You cannot just post random opinions and claim they are factual when they are not. You cannot ignore people's requests for references, and you cannot use logical fallacies.

 

Read the rules.

~moo

[Graviphoton]

I can post random thoughts in speculations. Something which i keep to.

 

I haven't posted speculation outside that framework.

 

And i only expect, or ask in a subtle way, that people keep an open mind. No more, no less.

[mooeypoo]

I can post random thoughts in speculations. Something which i keep to.

 

I haven't posted speculation outside that framework.

 

And i only expect, or ask in a subtle way, that people keep an open mind. No more, no less.

 

Nope, you can't. read the rules:

Here are some things to consider:

 

1. You have to back your statements up with evidence.

2. Anecdotes are not evidence.

3. Being challenged to present evidence is not a personal attack.

4. Calling the people in who challenge you "brainwashed" or "stupid" does not further your argument. Neither does throwing a tantrum.

5. Published research (peer-reviewed) is more credible than the alternative. But peer-review is not perfect.

6. When you have been shown to be wrong, acknowledge it.

7. Just because some paper or web site agrees with you does not mean that you are right. You need evidence.

8. Just because some paper comes to the same conclusion as you does not mean your hypotheses are the same.

9. Provide references when you refer to the work of others. Make sure the work is relevant, and quotes are in the proper context.

10. Disagreeing with you does not make someone "close-minded." "Thinking outside the box" is not a substitute for verifiable experimental data.

11. Mainstream science is mainstream because it works, not because of some conspiracy. If you think you have an alternative, you have to cover all the bases - not just one experiment (real or gedanken). One set of experimental results that nobody has been able to reproduce is insufficient.

12. Respect is earned. People who are resident experts, mods and administrators have earned those titles.

13. Be familiar with that which you are criticizing. Don't make up your own terminology, and know the language of the science. A theory is not a guess.

14. If nothing will convince you your viewpoint is wrong, you aren't doing science. That's religion.

15. All theories are of limited scope. Just because a theory does not address some point you want it to does not automatically mean it's wrong.

16. Not understanding a concept, or discovering that it's counterintuitive, does not make it wrong. Nature is under no obligation to behave the way you want it to.

17. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Science cares very little about your opinion, as it has little relevance to the subject.

18. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to address criticism of your viewpoint.

Excerpt from the Rules of the Speculation forums, can be found here.

 

Refusing to follow the rules is one thing. Refusing to read them is disrespectful.

 

You are in a science forums, and we have rules. Follow them.

 

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

Then my placement here will be shortlived.

 

The rigour this site desires, is far from reality in most cases. You cannot sorce everything you say. That's an impossibility.

I do try to source when i can, or when asked. I can't do anymore than that i am affraid.

[mooeypoo]

Then my placement here will be shortlived.

 

The rigour this site desires, is far from reality in most cases. You cannot sorce everything you say. That's an impossibility.

I do try to source when i can, or when asked. I can't do anymore than that i am affraid.

 

At the very least source only the non-mainstream things you say, how 'bout that?

 

And no, you don't source when you're asked, see the other thread, but I'm not going to stick to the past, I'm willing to open a brand new page. Just source yourself, and let's go on to doing real science instead of arguing about following the rules of a forum you chose to post in.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=59&a=13

 

That's the Speculations policy.

 

I think the point is that if you're going to make extraordinary claims, you'll need to source them. We're only asking for references because we don't think you're right and want some sort of source to see if you really are.

[Graviphoton]

Right. But psychophysics is a mainstream unto itself. Its just that so many don't know about certain subjects conerning this area of physics.

 

But ok. I will source reference to area's which... ''are not'' maintream.

[Sayonara]

Therego, i have no reason to read the rules, because commonsense indicates proper behaviour, and how to conduct a conversation. Something which i haven't failed at so far, other than idiosyncracies.

You do have a reason to read the rules, because abiding by them is a condition of use of the site to which you agreed when you signed up. Not reading them would necessarily preclude that agreement. I suggest you take a peek.

 

While common sense might "indicate proper behaviour", this does not make it a comprehensive directing influence as to how members should use this site. Each one of the rules of this community has been conceived and codified for a reason. Self-proclaimed immunity only attracts exasperation.

 

We don't require you to source everything that you say, but if you are stating something as fact -- and basing your reasoning on that fact -- then I am sure you can see how referencing will help people to understand your perspectives more easily.

[Graviphoton]

I agree with the post you make. I will site references to that which is considered stone proof. But, my experience of my time here, it seems to me that people press for more.

 

If by reference, we talk peer-reviewed articles, this JUST ISN'T REALISTIC, as i have already explained. Many physicists, in whatever field they study, often say things, and is normally accepted by science and the general public.

 

Take for instance, when i said in another post, Hawking retracted his arguement concerning black hole travel. This did not recieve nor require a peer-reviewed article. So, i am to suffer for that?

 

It is within my experience that you can get away with citing a physicist, and expect it to be taken for granted, whether it be right or wrong. If it is my honesty that is in question, then that is personal. And the rules states that it isn't supposed to be of a personal nature at all.

 

But all the evidence points to the contrary in my case...

Our friend Caps said...

 

''We're only asking for references because we don't think you're right.''

 

He may not have been speaking about himself, but speaking for the forum in general. Neverthless, i think i have personally earned a bit of general respect, that when i say Hawking retracted a statement, it should be at least considered truth. Why would i claim something so outragous, if it wasn't true?

 

This is why my time being here is exhausting me. Because i am having to cite everything i say with some kind of evidence to back it up, and not every one of these are so outragous they deserve to be so thoroughly investigated.

[Sayonara]

I think there is some element of labelling going on here. In short, people identify you with a lack of referencing and this leads them to ask for references from you more frequently.

 

The positive thing to take away from that (and I have to disagree with the Cap'n here) is that if people are asking you for references, then they must want to read around the topics which you refer to in your ideas, and this in turn shows they are willing to consider those ideas in some depth.

 

It can be difficult to adjust to the idea of referencing if you have not been required to do it before, but it is worth doing. At the very least, it gives you more confidence that what you are proposing has a firm basis in established principles, while helping to convince others that you are not making it up as you go along.

[Graviphoton]

*nods head*

[Klaynos]

I ask for references because I'm genuinely interested in what you're saying. And normally technical books count as peer reviewed, as they will often have been through a similar process, and be bassed firmly on peer reviewed, I used a book a couple of months ago that had close to 500 peer reviewed papers listed as references in the back, which worked out to around 3/page!

[swansont]

I think there is some element of labelling going on here. In short, people identify you with a lack of referencing and this leads them to ask for references from you more frequently.

 

Along with claims that turned out to lack credibility. That's a biggie. If you establish a history of saying things that don't have a sound basis, you very quickly remove any benefit-of-the-doubt you might get.