[net.origins] The Nature of References

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."           |