Fastfission wrote:
It's actually not easy to verify that. It's easier to just point to a published resource by a reputable press, which is a lot harder to fake. We reach outside the internet for our verification, in the end, because we know that the internet is unreliable. It's an interesting model of digital epistemology, is it not?
Yes, I know. Math is like French or German, though -- one often has to be able to speak, before one is even able to "check the literature", so in many cases, offering someone non-internet verification amounts to "Here's a textbook...go home, read chapters 4-7 until you understand them, then come back and see that the results at the end of chapter 7 justify the argument." The real "verification" is in the understanding of chapters 4-7. Now, if someone isn't willing to take the time to learn chapters 4-7, (which may itself require previous years of training even to consider tackling), then the person could conceivably say, "That's not a reference, just an appeal to authority." In fact, this is precisely the response of the typical crank (as opposed to the knowledgeable but mistaken person, which has been myself on more than one occasion).
Of course, I'm sure other subjects are not so simple, either...imagine chemistry, archaeology, law, e.g.! If I asked for a reference for something in law, I wouldn't be surprised to hear, "Here's a law textbook...go home, read pages 200-400 until you understand them, and then see that the statutes on page 385-395 apply." Even in areas like history or lit crit, the same could apply (ever try to verify that Derrida or Habermas made a certain claim on page 352 of such-and-such?) My point is that "verification" always requires some amount of prior intangible expertise, and not all references to the literature will be "checkable" by everyone.
Of course, in general. But when there are real disputes, where the answer is not self-evident to most editors (such as the use of "there" vs. "their"),
That's not self-evident?! What are they teaching in schools today? :-)
darin
On 11/1/05, Brown, Darin Darin.Brown@enmu.edu wrote:
Of course, I'm sure other subjects are not so simple, either...imagine chemistry, archaeology, law, e.g.! If I asked for a reference for something in law, I wouldn't be surprised to hear, "Here's a law textbook...go home, read pages 200-400 until you understand them, and then see that the statutes on page 385-395 apply." Even in areas like history or lit crit, the same could apply (ever try to verify that Derrida or Habermas made a certain claim on page 352 of such-and-such?) My point is that "verification" always requires some amount of prior intangible expertise, and not all references to the literature will be "checkable" by everyone.
True, but philosophy is a good case in point. I've gotten in discussions on the talk page of philosophers before (i.e. [[Thomas Kuhn]]) where one user seems to have read a completely different text than I did and come to completely different conclusions about it. How to resolve this? Do I reason through Kuhn's argument and come up with my own interpretation? Do I try and create a synthetic argument buffetted by quotations? It's a legitimately difficult thing to do, as anyone who has read some philosophy and discussed it with others would know, especially with a character like Kuhn whose interpretations vary and historically varied quite widely with one another (some saw him as an unabashed relativist, others saw him as a form of Cold War reaffirmation of science, some saw him as painfully unoriginal, etc.). In the end, you hope for a very conservative, "just the facts, ma'am" reading of the text itself, with perhaps a section featuring various prominent interpretations properly attributed to their best-known articulations.
Will there always be involved an element of subjective, individual authority? Of course. But in such instances one can only try one's best. But shifting the burden to other, attributed opinions is one way to stay in the clear on it. But such an attempt is hard work, hence the Kuhn article isn't really in an "ideal" state of the sort I described.
Of course, in general. But when there are real disputes, where the answer is not self-evident to most editors (such as the use of "there" vs. "their"),
That's not self-evident?! What are they teaching in schools today? :-)
Ah, I think I was not clear: that was my example of when something *was* self-evident. What I meant by "such as" was "unlike"; not quite the same thing, I must admit!
FF
On 2 Nov 2005, at 02:32, Fastfission wrote:
True, but philosophy is a good case in point. I've gotten in discussions on the talk page of philosophers before (i.e. [[Thomas Kuhn]]) where one user seems to have read a completely different text than I did and come to completely different conclusions about it. How to resolve this? Do I reason through Kuhn's argument and come up with my own interpretation? Do I try and create a synthetic argument buffetted by quotations? It's a legitimately difficult thing to do, as anyone who has read some philosophy and discussed it with others would know, especially with a character like Kuhn whose interpretations vary and historically varied quite widely with one another (some saw him as an unabashed relativist, others saw him as a form of Cold War reaffirmation of science, some saw him as painfully unoriginal, etc.). In the end, you hope for a very conservative, "just the facts, ma'am" reading of the text itself, with perhaps a section featuring various prominent interpretations properly attributed to their best-known articulations.
In this case there is plenty of secondary material on interpretations and I would use that if necessary. If you come up with an argument supported by quotes you may just end up being accused of selective quoting.
Justinc