beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (05/08/85)
The objection that "references are not provided" has been raised innumerable times in this group, most often when someone has dared to draw her/his own conclusions from the "facts". Yet when direct quotes are posted they are quite often of the form "the evidence indicates that X is true", and not of the form "these actual physical items were discovered at these actual physical locations in three- space". I'm surprised at the frequency of this, because all these quotes really us tell is "somebody else thinks so too". [If you want *my* references, read the entire SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATIONISM.] Even if that somebody is literate enough to publish, the bare fact that s/he thinks so too is not really very useful information. The only way I think this form of reference could be useful is if the quote included a description of exactly what evidence indicates X, and maybe even exactly how X follows from that evidence better than any other Y. The quotes are *rarely* that complete, yet they keep coming. I'm not sure why I'm posting this. I think I'd like to heighten people's sensitivity to the quality (usefulness) of the information they're posting/reading. I think if we get a little more restrictive as to the types of quotes we'll accept as useful references (by coming down on the "s/he said so" proofs), we may be able to spend more time dealing with the meat of this issue and less time picking nits. The phone lines are open and operators are standing by (to divert your responses). -- --JB "The giant is awake."
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/17/85)
Beth Christy has commented on the use of, and requests for, references in articles in this newsgroup. I am not exactly sure if her remarks are directed at me or not, but it seems that it would do no harm to explain why I include them in my own articles, and why I routinely request that others give their own sources. I discuss both the failure to cite the sources of quoted material, and my purposes for using quotations in the first place. The context should clarify which issue I am talking about at different points in this article. Naturally, I will give full references for my remarks! A good first step towards examination of an argument is to ask your opponent for their sources and check them out for yourself. Sometimes they don't have any at all and are just spouting gibberish (this goes for both sides). When such is not the case you may find that your view of the content of those sources differs considerably from the view of those who disagree with you. This may lead to fruitful discussion. At the very least we become better informed. The failure to give sources of quotes is frustrating to those who disagree with you and want to check your sources to see if you are presenting the information in them accurately. For example, many evolutionists believe that creationists are chronic misquoters [1]. They sometimes view the practice of failing to give citations as a method for stating inaccurate information without the possibility of being checked. They are also suspicious that the creationist has not actually read the source and has only picked up a quote from somewhere else. Sources should be given for this reason, if for no other. I believe that it helps promote communication and trust (two things lacking to a discouraging degree in the origins debate). By giving references, I allow others to check if I am quoting out of context. Without the source there is no way to tell, and the net effect :-) may then be to arouse a suspicion in the minds of others that a quotation is being misused. This is not a healthy thing. When I give the reference, anyone can go out and check it to their own satisfaction. Here is an example. Alfred Wallace, who independently and about the same time as Charles Darwin proposed a theory of evolution based upon natural selection said [2p53]: "One of the strongest arguments which have been adduced to prove the original and permanent distinctness of species is, that _varieties_ produced in a state of domesticity are more or less unstable, and often have a tendency, if left to themselves, to return to the normal form of the parent species." Taken by itself, this quote implies that Wallace supports the argument to which he refers. Certainly he is not here disputing the tendency of domestic animals to revert to the form of the parental stock, but when one reads the original, one discovers that Wallace is *not* saying that he supports the argument; he is stating an interpretation with which he *disagrees*, so that he can clearly state what fault he finds with it. Similarly, G G Simpson once said [3p474], "First and most important is the fact that mankind _is_ a kind", but Simpson certainly does not accept the creationist concept of "kind", though this statement taken by itself seems to imply as much. (I have already given this example in my "Out-of-Context Quote-of-the-Month" series. The purpose of this series is to bring this problem to the forefront by making explicit reference to it, with examples.) A more subtle problem is the charge of distortion that arises when, for example, an evolutionist is cited as a witness against some aspect of evolutionary theory. This probably happens with Stephen Jay Gould more often than with any other evolutionist, and perhaps more often on the topic of the "hopeful monster" than any other [see ref. 4 for Gould's expression of his frustrations on this point (but keep in mind that he contradicts himself in other of his writings)]. In some measure this may be because few people seem to know much of the history of this idea. If that history were more generally known, and if people knew where to go to read about it, I think there might be a greater amount of discussion about what the idea really is, rather than what people think it is. (To that end, I hope to present in the near future a short summary of the development of this concept.) There is always also the possibility that one actually has misinterpreted what an author was trying to say. This is not an appealing prospect, but by giving the reference one increases the liklihood of discovering one's error, since readers who check your work will often tell you you're wrong! We may not like this, but it is best to find it out and humbly acknowledge our errors. (I admit that I am not very good on the humble part). A point related to this is that it is worthwhile to give one's sources as a sort of diagnostic device, for the purpose of finding out if one is using trash to back up one's arguments. It is entirely possible, for example, that I may make an argument based on a source that has since been shown to be incorrect, but that I might be unaware of that fact. If I give my source, I show up front the basis of my reasoning. Evolutionists who are well-versed in the literature are going to let me know when I am armed only with a few (or even many!) now-invalid arguments. So what have I done by giving a crummy source? I have availed myself of the knowledge of others and have been able to improve my own understanding as a result. (I'm not saying that one should deliberately give bad references, only that explicit acknowledgement of one's sources may be helpful in this way.) Failure to cite the source of a quotation is also frustrating to those who agree with you but want to obtain more information - perhaps they recognize that your sources contain information crucial to an issue they are thinking about, and need to read the source first-hand. But if the reference is not given, they are cut off. By using and citing references I hope to give people a handle on what they can read to find out more. For example, I cite a number of evolutionary authors. One reason I do this is that creationists need to read evolutionary literature, and by giving the quotations I hope that should one desire to read further, the substance of the quote may be useful in directing others to topics of interest to them. I certainly do *not* give quotations for the purpose of helping other creationists build up a "quote library" to use on evolutionists. That sort of thing leads only to superficiality. If my creationist colleagues save my quotations and never read any of the sources from which they are taken, everybody loses. Especially creationists, because they come to be seen as ridiculous and uninformed as a result of engaging in such practices. You have probably guessed by now that I will continue to use references in my articles, and that I hope to see others do the same. --- References [1] Laurie R Godfrey, "The Flood of Antievolutionism", Natural History, 90(6), June 1981, 4ff. This is reprinted in "Scientific Creationism: The Art of Distortion", In _Science and Creationism_, Ashley Montagu ed, Oxford University Press, 1984, 167ff. [2] Alfred Russel Wallace, (with Charles Darwin), "On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection", J Linn Soc (Zool), 3, 1958, 45-62. [3] George Gaylord Simpson, "The Biological Nature of Man", Science, 152, 22 April 1966, 472-478. [4] Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory", In _Science and Creationism_, Ashley Montagu ed, Oxford University Press, 1984, 117-125. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "A raised beach may be formed by submergence of the sea." |