"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ftipup$149$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "H Duffy" <hester_duffy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:6620alF2j14lqU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> We don't restrict them in terms of where they can find their sources;
we
>> simply expect them to use, and cite, reliable sources. And to make that
>> easier for them, and to ensure that they don't have to pay for their
>> reliable sources if they don't want to, we provide them with free
access
>> to a library, which has lots of reliable sources in it.
> But not the only source of course because few libraries contain every
book
> ever written
That's right. But of course, they don't _need_ every book ever written;
most
of them will be irrelevant to whatever they happen to be doing. So we just
make sure that there are enough _relevant_ books in the library, plus
accessible journal articles, that they can complete the work they're
assigned.
>> Well, part of "ability" is the ability to find and use and cite
reliable
>> sources,
> Only the only reliable source for what happened at Roswell was the US
> government
But since the Roswell incident isn't actually on any curricula that I'm
aware of, that's not relevant; it's a tangent. Stop going off on tangents.
We're tlaking about undergraduate students in Universities. Stick to that.
OK?
> >and to distinguish between reliable sources (like peer-reviewed
>> journals) and unreliable sources (like Wikipedia, religious websites,
and
>> so on).
> well wiki does cite some sources.
Yes, and some of those sources are reliable, but Wikipedia itself isn't,
because anyone can edit it at any time.
>> No, absolutely; in fact, quite often it's _disagreeing_ with it that
>> demonstrates some original thought and uderstanding. But it's a lot
more
>> useful to disagree (or agree, either way) with a reputable, reliable
>> source than with some nutjob who has put up a bunch of inaccurate
>> nonsense as propaganda on a website.
>
> Yep but how do you prove it. How can you tell a nut job from an official
> liar
> with a government run website to back them up, and lots of people also
> agree with it
> because if they don;t they won't have a job.
You look for peer-reviewed sources. As I've explained, in peer-reviewed
journals, no-one's job is on the line, regardless of whether they agree or
disagree, so you can be fairly sure that no-one is simply toeing a party
line (reviewers are generally anonymous anyway).
I don't know whether you realise it, but you're now pretty much su****ting
what I and Dag and Troia and others have been saying; that some sources
are
not reliable, and therefore one should look for reliable, externally
validated sources rather than simply accepting whatever webpage your
search
happens to throw up.
>> Right. And the way those things changed is that people read _those_
>> journals, and then came up with intelligent refutations. If they hadn't
>> bothered to read them, they couldn't have pointed out why they were
>> wrong, and no progress would have been made.
> But proving them wrong is where the problem lies especially when you
have
> so
> many agreeing with the original material because they think it makes
them
> look clever.
What makes you think proving them wrong is a problem? It's actually not
_that_ difficult; you examine their experimental methods and their
theories,
and you find the flaws in them, and you replicate their studies and see if
you get the same results, and you do your own research on the same area,
and
publish that.
Academia really isn't full of Yes-men, as you seem to think; academics
thrive on disagreement. It's how progress is made, so very few academics
are
afraid of disagreeing with what someone else has said.
>> No, Dave, I didn't; you _assumed_ that any source that sup****ted what
I'd
>> said was Catholic, but you were actually entirely wrong about that.
>
> But you never proved the point though did you, just found the same thing
> that
> was said some 400 years ago.
I found a number of eminent historians whose point of view sup****ts what I
said. That's about as close to proof as you can get when talking about
renaissance history. You haven't accepted that those historians know more
than you do about the subject, but that's because you're pretty much
incapable of analytical or critical thought; you have a gut feeling that
you're right, and no amount of evidence can change that, because you work
purely on gut feelings rather than evidence. In that, you're really very
like the people, whom you crticise on a regular basis, who believe every
word of the Bible because they simply _know_ it's true, no matter what the
evidence says.
And when someone else came along and agreed
> with me you called them a ****wit or something similar
I didn't call him a ****wit, I pointed out he was a grepping loon, which
he
was.
> There was a program on the other night about Brutus and that the idea
that
> he
> betrayed Jesus was another mistranslation I've believed that for years
You think Brutus betrayed Jesus?
Um... wrong JC. You've got _very_ mixed up.
Now, perhaps when you've figured out where you went wrong here, you could
take that as an indication of your understanding of ancient history, and
recognise that actually, you know **** all about ancient history, biblical
or otherwise.
> So inteligence over the peer reviewed and authorised KJV Bible.
You're off on a tangent again; the Bible is not an academic source. We're
talking about academic sources. therefore, we are not talking about the
Bible.
Clear?
>> For example, I'm reading various stuff on evolutionary psychology at
the
>> moment. I _could_ go and read some creationist websites,
> You should do, there really funny, much funnier than the simpsons.
>
> >because they
>> mention evolution. But would there be any point? No, of course not,
>> because they don't actually have anything useful or informative to say
>> about evolution.
> Well they may have done in the past in fact in the past you'd have had
to
> agree with them
> to have any career prospects or to be thought of as clever or educated.
You are missing my point; is that deliberate or accidental? Do I need to
explain it again, or are you just choosing to ignore it because it doesn't
fit with your faith-based worldview?
>>or So instead, I'll stick to scientific articles in reputable journals,
>>and scientific books published by reputable publishers.
> It doesn't always make them right though, we know things change with the
> times
> and 500 odd years ago you'd be locked up for what yuo believe.
But we're talkign about now, not about 500 years ago. We're talking about
modern academia. Stop going off on obsessive tangents, and stick to what
we're actually talking about.
>> Because even a reputable source doesn't have access to Absolute Truth;
>> quite often, we want them to look at two opposing views of the same
>> issue, and try to understand the evidence behind each view.
> Yes, so why not let them go to a creationist website to see the other
side
> of the coin
> and let them compare, why not ?
Because we're interested in scientific viewpoints, not faith-based ones.
Faith-based viewpoints have their place, but that place is not within
academia, and since, here, we're talking about academia, faith-based
approaches are not relevant.
>> Yes, and in your spare time, you can, but some opinions just don't
inform
>> the debate at all, and are thus a waste of time.
> In your opinion.
No, Dave, not in _my_ opinion; in the opinion of anyone in Academia.
because, y'see, we're not interested in simple, unfounded or faith-based
opinions, we're interested in the way students (and other academics) deal
with _evidence_. We're interested in how people apply the scientific
method.
>> That's right; some members of the human race know enough about a given
>> subject that their opinions are useful and informative. Some don't.
>
> But how can you judge without listening to both sides.
By introducing the scientific method. That way, anyone who has evidence
can
show it, and be listened to, and anyone who doesn't can go off and have
their own faith-based beliefs, but keep them out of academia.
>> *heh* What, and ask some Sherriff in America who claims to have reduced
>> recidivism by 70% by painting the prison pink? Exactly how far beyond
>> that source did _you_ go before accepting his story, Dave? What
evidence
>> did you look at to sup****t what he said?
> I looked at other sites which discuss the colour pink.
Did any of them provide evidence to sup****t _his claim_ about reoffence
statistics dropping? Did any of them even mention it?
> I can't proved what he said but as with even reputable sites I don;t
know
> whether
> the tests were done on students correctly and whether or not I believe
> they
> act the same as adults is another point. I haven't seen the
questionnaires
> or how they
> were answered all I've see are that I've been told are the results is
that
> really proof.
> Considering I've been lied about on states and I have know states to be
> faked more
> times than they have been factual.
And yet you chose to believe the statisttic re****ted in that newspaper
article, even though no further evidence or information was given,a nd
even
though it didn't fit with the other evidence you yourself found (those
crime
stats you linked to); why?
>> No, it really isn't. Whether a source is reputable or not doesn't
depend
>> on which opinions they express, it depends on whether they actually
>> provide reliable, valid evidence for their opinions.
> Do you truly believe that the male propensity to rape is the same as a
> students propensity to rape is.
Can you explain to me how that's a relevant question here, other than the
fact that it caters to your sick little obsession with talking about rape?
Seriously, Dave, has there ever been a discussion about _anything_ that
you
haven't tried to turn into a discussion about rape?
>>If a Creationist came up with some solid _proof_ that the planet is only
>>6,000 years old, and could show the whole research process, then their
>>views would be worth listening to.
>
> But what if someone took a piece of the Turin shroud to prove it is only
> 300
> years old or whatever because the part they took was a section that had
> been repaired 300 years ago.
What about it? Think carefully, and then tell me what point you think
you're
trying to make here.
> For me I don;t have any idea whether or not it's the shroud of Christ
all
> I'd
> want is them to take a bit of original cloth from it and test than
rather
> than a
> corner that was repaired after the fire.
They did actually test the original fabric. Repairs had been done after
fire
damage, but not to the parts they tested.
>> Similarly, if Darwin had said "Evolution is the one true path and
anyone
>> who doesn't believe in it is an infidel", he wouldn't be counted as one
>> of the Fathers of Modern Science. He's reputable because he provided
>> logical, evidence-based proof of his theories.
> For me he changed his mind as he didn't;t really believe in what he
found
> but the evidence was so overwhelming that he changed his mind that is a
> true
> researcher and scientist judging on evidence that HE found rather than
> what
> someone else has told him to believe rightfully or wrongfully.
That's what all researchers do, Dave; we don't sit here, zoned out and
parrotting whatever we're told. We're paid to think for ourselves; that's
what we do for a living.
The fact that we often don't agree with your faith-based beliefs doesn't
mean we're not thinking for ourselves. If anything, it means _you're_ not
thinking for yourself, because you've shown, again and again, that you're
incapable of actually basing your views on the evidence, rather than on
your
gut feeling.
>> I don't know of any reputable sources, and thus I don't have a strong
>> opinion on what it was. It seems likely that it was a spy balloon of
some
>> sort, but without seeing actual evidence, I can't draw a conclusion.
>
> It seemed starnge that it took 590 years before someone changed it from
> weather ballon to spy ballon, considering there >
I'm going to assume there's a typo in there, as well as a missing sentence
ending. Would you like to try again?
>> stuff that someone has already done, mightn't it? I mean, there'd be no
>> point in an astrophysicist _now_ saying "Hold on chaps; I think I've
>> figured it out! The planets don't revolve around the Earth, they go
round
>> the sun! Hah! How's that for new research!".
> But what happens when you lock that person up and threaten to kill him
he
> he contioues
> to tell the trurth ?
We';re talking about _modern_ academia, Dave, not mediaeval academia.
Things
have changed. Here in the Western World, in the 21st century, we don't
lock
people up for heliocentrism, so that's simply not a relevant comment.
>
>> In order to generate _new_ knowledge, you have to understand the state
of
>> the science as it is, and that involves reading old stuff, so that
you're
>> not just reinventing the wheel.
> Nothing wrong with that if the original wheel is wonky.
But in order to know whether it needs reinventing, you need to stdy the
original wheel, correct?
In other words, you can neither re-invent the old stuff, nor create new
stuff, without referring to the old stuff.
If you want to do new, innovative research, you have to know what research
has already been done.
>> No, Dave, you don't. For example, you've repeatedly accused me of
>> believing that the Bible is true.
> I never said that.
You have done, repeatedly.
>> Yes, really; when was the last time you heard of an undergraduate
putting
>> out any rally ground-breaking work?
> well when the 11 or 13 yearold crack some maths problem
Could you give me a specific example?
>> *heh8 See, all you mean here is that anyone who doesn't absolutely
agree
>> with you must be unenlightened.
>> This is amusing, because that's precisely the attitude you're
attributing
>> to Academia. In fact, Academia doesn't have that attitude, but you do.
>> Surely even you can see the irony in that?
>
> You point about the Bible was that is was authorised and what was it 52
> scholars
> of teh time translated it so they got it right.
No Dave, that wasn't my point. See what I mean about you _always_ getting
it
wrong when you think you know my opinion?
>> No, I was interested in what was done, I just didn't agree with the
>> conlcusions, because tyhey make certain blatantly false assumptions.
>> Or rather, the newspaper re****t you linked to included those
assumptions;
>> whether they were included in the original research, I don't know. I
>> suspect they weren't.
>
> The journals out there it was written at the time go check it out.
If you'd like to link to it, feel free.
H
|
