Just Google It

[Dinwar]

The equivalent to "just google it" in this forum is, "read these papers" followed by 16 links to subscription-only journal articles.

Seriously? You're saying that linking to peer-reviewed research and primary sources is somehow incorrect? This is on the level of the person who said "Who are lay people to question scientists?"

Let's be clear: for certain topics, posting links to peer-reviewed research is THE appropriate response. If it costs money, well, you have a choice to make--do you want to participate meaningfully to the conversation or not? If you do, pay up. If you don't like it, frankly go cry to someone else; I've put down hundreds of dollars for books on topics discussed on this forum, and have precisely zero sympathy for someone who wants to criticize experts on the subject but not spend $20 or $30 on a paper or two. Educating yourself requires resources. If you are unwilling to put those resources into educating yourself on that topic, it is shere arogance to criticize those of us who HAVE educated ourselves on the topic. It is an abandonment of all intellectual integrity to then use the fact that we link to the sources you refuse to purchase as an excuse to dismiss the arguments.

Sure, we should provide summaries of what we link to. That's just common courtisy. But certain topics have a relatively high cost of entry. If you wish to discuss cladistics or the evolution of mammals or quantum mechanics or medicine, you're going to have to shell out some cash for the references. It's as simple as that.

I still contend that a minimum level of understanding of the topic at hand is necessary, and if you demonstrate that you don't have that level of understanding it is entirely appropriate for either side to tell you to go away until you have educated yourself to the point where you can meaningfully participate. Is it dismissive? Sure. That said, it's extremely rude to jump into a discussion that you know nothing about and demand to be taken seriously. I see no reason for the people you are dealing with to be more polite than you ("you" here being general, not specific--English sucks in that regard). If you don't know the basic terminology, or the key concepts, you SHOULD spend some time on Google, or better still a library or textbook, until you get to the point where you DO understand them. (The exception is a thread where a person or people are specifically presenting the material in an attempt to educate others, obviously.)

 

[SusanB-M1]

Here's a better link: http://www.skepdic.com/essays/radin.html

Thank you for that link - I think it's going to come in useful when people tell me I ought to read what ~Dean Radin says!!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Let's be clear: for certain topics, posting links to peer-reviewed research is THE appropriate response.

Sure, but nothing on the Internet is permanent or guaranteed to be accessible from everywhere, so you should always provide relevant excerpts to support your argument. If their accuracy is in question or the questioner wants more background information then they can try to follow the link.

Providing a bare link to an article - whether it is accessible to your audience or not - is just as rude and annoying as linking to a 3 hour YouTube video. "Just Google it" is the ultimate example, as you are basically giving the entire Internet as your cite!

If it costs money, well, you have a choice to make--do you want to participate meaningfully to the conversation or not? If you do, pay up... Educating yourself requires resources. If you are unwilling to put those resources into educating yourself on that topic, it is sheer arrogance to criticize those of us who HAVE educated ourselves on the topic.

Consider your audience. You may not be able to get through to some posters, but in public discussion groups there are usually many lurkers following the discussion and being informed by it. Treat your willfully ignorant adversary as an opportunity to spread your wisdom and (almost) everybody will be better off.

If it costs money, well, you have a choice to make--do you want to participate meaningfully to the conversation or not? If you do, pay up. If you don't like it, frankly go cry to someone else; I've put down hundreds of dollars for books on topics discussed on this forum, and have precisely zero sympathy for someone who wants to criticize experts on the subject but not spend $20 or $30 on a paper or two.

If you were talking to other scientists in a closed discussion group then this would be a fine attitude, but that doesn't apply to the JREF. Here it is expected that most posters will not have the background education or resources to understand highly technical conversations. Telling lay people to 'frankly go cry to someone else' or pay up is inappropriate and rude.

"Who are lay people to question scientists?"

Saying "go get yourself the same education as me and then you will understand what I am saying" is basically the same attitude. We have the right to question, and to expect answers tailored to a non-technical audience. If you aren't capable of doing that, perhaps you shouldn't be here...

 

[RonaldScotts]

Google brought me to this forum. I googled it!

 

[Dinwar]

Sure, but nothing on the Internet is permanent or guaranteed to be accessible from everywhere, so you should always provide relevant excerpts to support your argument.

A fair point. I had a similar discussion last summer--another paleontologist and I were discussing the relative merits of wiki-style references vs. paper references. He brought up the fact that wikis can be updated constantly, and therefore always have the latest and greatest (the wiki he works on has tight controls on who can edit the document, based on expertise in reptile anatomy, so wiki-wars are unlikely). I brought up the fact that books don't change--even if a new edition comes out, you can still reference the old one.

If you were talking to other scientists in a closed discussion group then this would be a fine attitude, but that doesn't apply to the JREF.

In most cases, I agree with you. In most cases, I'm happy to explain what I'm talking about. However, certain posters insist that they know more than the relevant experts, and it is certainly appropriate to demand someone put the resources into learning the field when they try to say that they know it better than the experts themselves.

I expect people to know the limits of their knowledge. When you get to the point where you demand that people accept your ignorance as valid but the knowledge of experts as invalid, because it's you saying it, you've gone so far off the deep end that continuing to engage with you in discussion is not obligatory or even advisable ("you" here is generic, not directed at you!). If someone can't even use the terms correctly, after weeks, months, or even YEARS of discussion, it's perfectly fine to say "I'm through until you learn what the devil we're talking about." I invite you to read the Shroud of Turin threads to see an example of this. The "criticisms" of Islam thread is another.

Saying "go get yourself the same education as me and then you will understand what I am saying" is basically the same attitude.

Not at all. After a certain point, it becomes obvious that the person you're talking to is completley and willfully ignorant of the topic at hand and refuses to acknowledge it. Dismissing them for what they are--arogant, uneducated, insulting, and unwilling to engage in an actual conversation--is appropriate. There is no reason I should be expected to discuss evolution with Kent Hovand, for example. It would be sufficient for me to demonstrate his willful ignorance and state that I will be willing to discuss it AFTER he learns the absolute basics (ie, what the words mean). Certain posters on this board are no better than Hovand.

 

[Dinwar]

If you aren't capable of doing that, perhaps you shouldn't be here...

The question isn't capacity, it's willingness. This thread assumes that all participants in all threads are honest. This is patently untrue. And it's simply insane and assinine to demand that we ignore evidence--not to mention undercutting the whole point of the JREF to begin with!! Once someone is proven to be dishonest, there's no reason for further discussion. A set of links to relevant material, or suggested Google search terms, posted for the benefit of any interested lurkers, is sufficient.