ATTENTION TO ANY AND ALL WHO WISH TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY
If you want to posit a claim of any sort, and this claim is to be taken seriously by any who read it, please for the love of all things rational, cite some sources. If you want to say that something is a fact, please demonstrate some evidence. A scientific study, poll data, accounts from a credible source, some hint of rationale, anything would be better than nothing. Here are a few places one can find good data:
- Surprisingly, Wikipedia. Wikipedia is run and edited by professionals in relevant fields, who use credible material from reliable sources. Any historical fact or scientific datum found on Wikipedia is just as likely to be correct as those found on Encyclopedia Brittanica.
- Speaking of which, Encyclopedias. The aforementioned one is just fine, or use any up-to-date almanac.
- Journals, periodicals, etc. from reliable companies. Forbes is very reliable when it comes to economics and business culture, Times and The Washington Post keep relevant and accurate current events reports, most any newspaper will be reliable, and many science journals exist solely for you to find and use countless peer-reviewed scientific papers.
- Accredited websites. Sites like Physics.org are great for finding new and old scientific data and studies, and many other sites boast similar material.
- Works of professionals. Most historians, scientists, and other members of academic pursuits write books. Neil Degrasse Tyson has written several books about astrophysics that all contain accurate information, and Sam Harris has similar works about neuroscience. Published and accredited works of experts can be assumed to be accurate in established fields.
Many other resources exist to corroborate claims, but these are just a few. So, if any of you scallywags wants to spout some nonsense, tell us why it isn't nonsense. Back it up with facts. Show us that you have the capability to dig for data and find things out on your own. Research is vital in controversial topics, and if you want anyone to pay any mind to what you're saying, you'd best find some compelling data.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@ Jared
Well said sir.
@Jared Alesi
And as a corollary, it's helpful to indicate whose post you're responding to, since responses can sometimes get separated from the OP due to the ways posts are ordered on this site.
I'm on the fence about whether or not to cite sources. I personally don't care if people think what I'm saying is valid or not. They can look things up themselves and figure out what they believe.
Unless the discussion is about specific information, or the person is interested in more information, I'm done citing sources. It's a lot of work and the outcome is the same.
We know - that's why they call you "Breezy" It's a perfect avatar name. You cite sources when you want to be taken seriously. (That's just a fact.) Otherwise you are just rambling in the wind.... like an expert.
I prefer to be seen as rambling in the wind. I know where my information comes from. Either you guys will have a good argument against it or you don't. Sources don't change much.
Hard to take your statements about sources seriously; especially after you poop-pooped the American Psychiatric Association and the DSM-V.
I didn't poop-pooped anything. Would citing my clinical psychology and abnormal psychology textbooks have changed anything? I broke down the issue in a coherent way for you. If attaching an (Author, Date) citation changed anything, then either you are not thinking, or I'm not explaining something right.
Wow! I can agree with John Breezy. It can get atrociously difficult to keep with the sources. I for one, due to my stupidity in the way I labeled my DVDs, can find it exceptionally difficult to find the sources I had used up to 30 years ago. I have even used vacations to travel to the Levant and Middle-East to investigate some artifacts I found mentioned in other works. I wanted to see them for myself and talk with the museum curators. Most of my information is still rattling around inside my head, especially about the Noahacian Flood Story and the Exodus. I focused on these two because they are the two major bulwarks (as Old Man put it) within the Christian faith. Should include the Creation Story, but that story actually debunks itself.
All total, I have about 4 terabytes of information stored on DVDs. And for one example, the one I am currently searching, the DVDs are labeled thusly:
Bkup19960824112616
Remember, a DVD can hold a shitload of TXT files and images. I use TXT files since they are smaller and can be ported directly into other software and prettified.
That kind of stupid and idiotic labeling schema tells me nothing of what is on that DVD. I have to search virtually file by file by folder by folder. Now some folders are named properly, but not all.
And I hate doing searches on the WWW. There is just so much other crap to sift through. However, I do find some legitimate sites. But then I sometimes forget to get the URL. And I can attest to Wikipedia's general overall veracity because I was a volunteer for about 12 years (2003 to 2015) mainly focusing in the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, geology, volcanology, and seismology. In the long run, I ran out of enough free time to devote to researching the veracity of additions made to the pages. Hell, I even thought of volunteering here at AR as an editor. Again, I feel I do not have enough free time to devote.
However, what you wrote is very well said. Perhaps I can try do better.
Sorry, again I have gone verbose...
rmfr
In an ideal world everyone would cite their sources, but yeah, I kind of agree. On an Internet forum writing cited tractates is too much of a hassle. I also write most of my posts on my cancerbox, so citing is practically impossible.
And... anything cited without a credible source can be rejected. Are we forgetting Hitchen's Razor? That which is asserted without proof can be rejected without proof. You must play by the same standards you hold the Theists to. Granted we get away with a bit more as we are all atheists. But if you want to be clear, fair and honest, cite your sources.
Yea we don't have to do it all the time. But --- If you are making a point --- There really isn't a much better way to do it than to use well established facts and cite a prominent source. Just my opinion. Others may vary!
Then cite your sources for Hitchens razor, as well as any supporting documents establishing it as a valid argument.
Ewwww Breezy got his panties in a wad. Sorry you don't know the source. Perhaps you should read a book.
Gladly, except I don't know which book to read, cause you didn't cite your sources.
I believe that like I believe in Jesus Christ. All you are doing is looking to instigate. Everyone here has your number. No one here takes you serious. For the intelligence you occasionally demonstrate you really end up looking moronic at times. Take this challenge for example. Do you really imagine anyone on this site thinks you do not know what "Hitchen's Razor is." You just say shit to be Breezy. Go be a mosquito bite on someone else's butt. I don't play.
No worries, I would have said the same thing you just said if I didn't have any sources.
Go be a mosquito bite on someone else's butt. I don't play.
I believe that like I believe in Jesus Christ. All you are doing is looking to instigate. Everyone here has your number. No one here takes you serious. For the intelligence you occasionally demonstrate you really end up looking moronic at times. Take this challenge for example. Do you really imagine anyone on this site thinks you do not know what "Hitchen's Razor is." You just say shit to be Breezy. Go be a mosquito bite on someone else's butt. I don't play.