Requiring citations (split from Stormy Weather? Not so much)

[Phi for All]

 

I think you have a point, but this forum does demand evidence when it is contrary to the consensus.

 

We demand it of the consensus, so we're just trying to be consistent. Is there a problem?

[Wild Cobra]

 

We demand it of the consensus, so we're just trying to be consistent. Is there a problem?

It sure doesn't seem that way.

[swansont]

It sure doesn't seem that way.

 

You are a participant, so if there is a dearth of requests for missing citations, why have you been remiss in asking for them? However, I think you'll find that the habits of those posting on the consensus view pertaining to global warming (and other areas) is that they often provide citations without prompting for claims where that would be appropriate.

[Greg H.]

As a general rule, I try and provide citations whenever I post something that I consider to be outside the realm of general knowledge. It just saves tediousness later, and tends to move the discussion along.

 

I should note that it's important to provide citations that are meaningful to the topic at hand - a comment from a high school English teacher on quantum mechanics is probably not going to garner much support for your position (unless said individual also happens to hold an advanced degree in physics for some reason).

 

If the topic at hand lends itself to a mathematic demonstration, include one. This forum does include a LaTeX parser, and it's pretty hard to argue with correctly done maths (unless they're being misapplied - like using Newton when GR is required).

 

Finally, if possible, try to include more than one citation from multiple sources - this tends to make your position stronger.

 

Edit to add: Try and avoid using sources that have been repeatedly debunked. Pretty much anything from the Institue for Creation Research, for example, has generally been discussed to death and roundly refuted here, and on other forums.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Greg H.

[Phi for All]

It sure doesn't seem that way.

 

I have to assume that you don't mean citations from other discussion participants, since you've obviously been inundated with links to peer-reviewed articles supporting the claims other participants are making in those Climate Science threads. Are you instead saying that the consensus view itself isn't held to a rigorous enough standard? The evidence for a scientific consensus has passed enough tests to be the best explanation we have, accepted by the most professionals in that field, and they're published so anyone can check the techniques used to gather it. Are you claiming they all dropped their normally rigorous methodology on a highly publicized issue like climate change?

[mothythewso]

I think that after someone's made a post, whether pro-or-anti consensus, another poster's replied with disparaging comments referencing the poster's liberal/conservative talking points, the original poster's fired back in kind, each following post should start "Standard Conservative or Liberal Bullshit posited.". Otherwise the boredom factor really mounts up.

[Phi for All]

I think that after someone's made a post, whether pro-or-anti consensus, another poster's replied with disparaging comments referencing the poster's liberal/conservative talking points, the original poster's fired back in kind, each following post should start "Standard Conservative or Liberal Bullshit posited.". Otherwise the boredom factor really mounts up.

 

This completely bypasses the problem. The problem is that too many people with personal agendas are labeling these stances either conservative or liberal to evoke certain emotions. They're deliberately trying to turn some of these objections into opinion in the eye of the public, so they can "agree to disagree" (more BS that sounds like diplomacy).

 

I agree that these pundit talking points are virtually useless for anyone who's interested in reasonable solutions. I think it's up to the individual poster to decide if they want to pollute the conversation with crap.

 

People need to start using their critical thinking skills to sift fact and evidence from mere opinion. And they need to stop labeling their entire perspective as right or left or red or blue or whatever nuanced version of life they think they subscribe to. EVERYBODY knows people aren't that simplistic in reality. In reality we're a mix of many leanings and flavors and perspectives.