Re: Weekly posting summary

whisky-dave wrote:
> "Dag" <dagwast@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:ftg0s40i6o@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> yes such as pink, you can quite easily find many references to pink
> having a psychological effect on people, I can see no reason why
criminals
> should be excluded. 

The question was never whether it _could_ have some effect, but if it 
did have the specific effect claimed.  Whereas I could accept the former 
I very much doubt the latter.

>> Also I might not be able to access that article via the same URL you
used 
>> for various reasons.  Citing author, title, journal name, year, volume
and 
>> page (and URL in addition to all this if you really want) makes it a
lot 
>> easier to find.
> Yes it does, but ease of finding it is hardly relivant to it's factual 
> content.
  >>> If I tell them I have a book with the same article and that book
is now
>>> out of print how do we proceed.
>> Finding copies of out of print books rarely very hard.  Your local
library 
>> can no doubt help you.
> But it doesn;t make them correct does it.

Of course not.  Citing something doesn't have anything do to with
correctness of the material in question.  It is not uncommon to cite
work that you know is incorrect to show mistakes people have made.


>> Just because I find something so trivially obvious that it doesn't seem

>> worth dwelling on, my readers might not.  And so it is good to tell
them 
>> where they can go for more background information.  You should always
cite 
>> in such a way that finding the article is as easy as possible, both now

>> and in the future.
> I agree but it's not always possible.

True there are cases when it is not possible to present your sources, or 
where your sources are hard or impossible to check up.  And in and of 
itself there is nothing wrong with that, but you have to have some 
pretty good arguments as to why you can't present your sources and why 
we should believe you anyway.

>> Indeed.  And no one (other than the voices in your head) have said that

>> that is in any way correct or a good idea.
> I'd allow student to point to anything they wanted and I';d judge them
> on the sources they cited rather than who they suck up to.

Which is exactly what everybody else does as well.  Except they
primarily also judge them on the quality of their ideas, arguments and
writing.  If your arguments and ideas are badly thought through and 
presented it doesn't matter who or what you've cited.

>>> Education isn;t just about agreeing with your peers,
>> Exactly, but you have know what your peers actually think before you
can 
>> disagree with them.  Doing like you do and disagreeing with someone
over a 
>> position they never actually held just makes you look a fool.
> But I haven't done that, it wasn't me that suggested that hard labour
would 
> reduce reoffending. 

Nor did I.  I suggested that it could be a factor and as an avenue of 
research, and if that turns out not be the case I have no problem at all 
admitting that my assumption was incorrect.  I fail to see what the 
problem is.  You keep bringing it up all over the place like you think 
it scores you some major points.

>>  Also if you base your writings on false assumptions
> Such as pink is calming ........

So is that a false assumption now?

>> then your ideas probably won't be correct
> Like hardr labour reducing reoffending.

If that is in fact incorrect then yes any idea based on that
assumption being true will quite likely prove false.

However ideas based on true assumptions don't automatically become true.

>> either, thus the im****tance on basing your thesis or theory on a solid 
>> foundation.
> And there is lots of solid foundation that has been proved and cited 
> regarding pink having a claming effect,

You still haven't shown me much of this, but I'm willing to accept it.

> but nothing I've found that says hard labour has
> any such effect on calmness or reducing reoffending.

OK, I'll assume you've done the work and that that is true.  Fair 
enough.  So you agree with me that it was worth checking out and taking 
into account.

> But you seem to think thatv is a serious possibility, I'd like to know
why.

Because in this particular case there seemed to be some cir***stantial 
evidence which indicated there might be a connection.  It also just kind 
of seemed like the sort of thing one should take into account.  Why does 
my exact line of reasoning make a difference?

> Where are yuor cites to back up your point which YOU brought up not me.

I offered it up as an avenue of research not as a central thesis.  Do
you get the difference and why it doesn't need a cite?

>> Again what good does it do that what I write happens to be correct if
no 
>> one can verify that it is correct.
> Again lok arounfd you for every one cite that say hard labour reduces
> crime/reoffending I'll sure you two that say pink has a calming effect 

You realize that quantity of cites is not necessarily a measure of
quality right.  Again we where never talking about if pink has a calming 
effect or not, but if painting the walls pink it the particular prison 
in question was the cause of stated effect.  Do you agree that the first 
could be true and the second false?

and I
> would
> have thought with violent offenders this may well make them less
violent,

It's certainly a possibility, I'm not and never have denied that.  I 
could even see arguments backing up this hypothesis.  However that is 
nowhere near enough to convince me that the pink walls where the sole or 
even primary cause of the particular effect the guardian article 
claimed.  I'm not even convinced the particular effect mentioned even 
occurred.  Non of that is connected to my opinion as to whether or not 
pink could have a calming effect.  Does that make sense to you?

> No that's why I looked at 'pink psychology' to see if there was ANY
evidence
> what so ever that pink can affect anyone's mind and there was lots of
it,
 > far more than hard labour anyway.

You haven't shown much of it, but I'll assume it exists.

> That's why I dismised the idea that the reason they weren't reoffending
was 
> due to har labour

Fair enough.  If you think you've done enough research to be able to 
back up the claim that hard labour isn't a factor in re-offending then 
you are certainly welcome to dismiss it.  I've certainly never claimed 
anything to the contrary.  I've never ever claimed that the idea cannot 
be dismissed, just that it cannot be dismissed without a valid argument. 
  Again do you see the difference.

>>>> I have no idea if such data exists or not, nor do I particularly care

>>>> enough to bother looking it up.
>>> So you're not very good at research then are you.
>> Why?  Because I'm too lazy to look up something that I have no interest

>> in?
> If you want me to believe your POV then surely you should do.

You've made it abundantly clear that you don't even have a clue what my 
POV is.

> If you want me to believe that there is ANY possibility that hard labour
> has ANY effect on criminals then you'll need to cite it.

You really don't get how this works do you.  I offered up a theory, you 
(apparently) checked it out and concluded that it was wrong.  Now if I 
want to retort and claim that your research is flawed then I'd have come 
with evidence for that.  But I have no intention of doing so because a) 
I don't care, b) I haven't seen your research or evidence and thus 
cannot easily refute it, c) I have no real and obvious reason to assume 
you are incorrect and d) I still don't care either way.

> After all you were the one to suggest that the hard labour could be why 
> prisoners
> were reoffending less, some suggest if you seriously believe it you
should 
> back it up.

Except as I've pointed out over and over again, I don't "seriously 
believe it".

> I've posted links where pink has been proved to have an effect on humans
and
> I think even criminals are human.

I must have missed those links.  Because non of the links I saw you post 
actually proved anything.  They included statements along the lines of 
"pink is thought to have a calming effetc".  And anyway, the fact that 
pink can have some effect on peoples moods was never the topic of 
discussion.

>>  I never made this point, nor have I said anything that could indicate
me 
>> championing this point.
> Go back and check on that.

I said it was worth checking out.  Given that you claimed to have 
checked it out, you seem to at least agree that is was worth checking 
out.  I fail to see where we disagree.


> I said I didn't; consider hard labour to have the effect as I couldn't
find 
> any  evidence to  sup****t that idea.

So you agree that it was worth checking out, since how else would you 
know that there was no evidence to be found.

>>> I could say it was because the moon is further awayb
>>> that it was, or perhaps topically cite global warming as the cause.
>> Indeed you could.  There is nothing stopping you from doing so.
> But surely I'd really need to cite it if I believed it and su[p****ted
it.

No if you wanted to credibly argue that these factors where in fact the 
main cause you'd have to prove it, or at least provide sufficient amount 
of cir***stantial evidence and credible arguments.  You do get the 
difference between citing something and proving something don't you.

> well I'm not a researcher, but if researchers can fake data how do you
know 
> that what you cite is factual, 

You don't.  Sometimes you even know that what you're citing isn't 
factual.  Factual is an entirely different issue totally unconnected to 
citing.

> if they are cleverer than you and their peers 
> they'll be able to fake whatever they want won't they.

It's very hard to do convincingly and there is a very good chance that 
they'll eventually get caught.  The simple truth is that there is always 
someone more clever than you are in some area who will eventually catch 
you out.

And really if you are the most clever person in your field why would you 
need to fake research.  If you're that clever you should have no problem 
doing groundbreaking proper research.

> If you're publi****ng original research how can it be peer reviewed ?

Holy ****!  You really are clueless aren't you.  That statement is 
probably the most bafflingly ignorant thing I've seen you write.  Out of 
curiosity what do you think peer review means and how do you think it's 
done?  Also what makes you think peer review cannot be done on original 
research?  Your answer will no doubt be a must amusing read.  As hint I 
can mention that I've already answered the first question in one of my 
earlier posts, which I think you actually even replied to.

Dag