StarGateWars Forums

I've been trying to grasp something for a while now. It pertains to the methods used both by people I debate with personally, and debate posts here in this section. As a social sciences graduate, I have been drilled for years in the art of conducting research following a number of methodologies. One concept, however, remained constant...

Reliable evidence.

Not only in writing papers/articles/reports, but also in general topical discussion, is citing relevant and reliable sources extremely important. One thing, however, strikes me (and makes me sad) about modern debating methods. People seem to no longer rely on reliable sources of information; and worse, attempt to use unreliable evidence as a tool to contradict properly operationalised and reasoned arguments. This, I have given a name:

Michael Moore Syndrome

This occurs when someone takes a radically biased "documentary", made to blatantly serve a particular agenda, and attempts to pass it off as fact (and worse, attempts to pass it off as neutral). These films are interesting, but need to be taken with a grain of salt. They are not indisputable fact, there are facts that they have omitted, and alternative points of view.

How reliable do you think these "documentaries" are as sources of evidence? What would you classify as "reliable evidence"?

The problems as relating to debating on internet forums are many, just a few off the top of my head are ;

1 - people cant be bothered to provide the references

2 - people think everyone should know the point they are making (ie percieved fact of life kind of stuff)

3 - few can be bothered to write out posts with each point referenced and put a miniboilography at the end of each post

4 - people draw from many sources of information, including their own experiences and memory. Some might not know where the original information came from (an example might be a point you remember from a high school science lesson or something similar) or it might be a hazy memory such as mine in the 9/11 conspiracy thread of a discussion that took place on another forum many years ago (I can remember the gist and overall point but not how that conclusion was arrived at)

and last but not least

5 - people cant be bothered, its the internet. how many people are you gonna meet in real life from an internet forum, which leads to half assed efforts and attempts becuase a lot of people just dont see the point of convincing someone half way around the world of their point.

EDIT: and ofc ourse as you mentioned all 'facts' are subjective upon who is presenting them, el gov info is just as biased as micheal moores is

Kit-Fox wrote:EDIT: and ofc ourse as you mentioned all 'facts' are subjective upon who is presenting them, el gov info is just as biased as micheal moores is

I would agree with that too. That's why we have many other sources of information.

I myself am in the process of writing a paper on Social Construction of Sciences, in the hope of it being published in the Aust. Journal of Sociology. I am conducting this research for the sake of interest, and don't care whether people support me or not... I just want it to be interesting. I lend more validity to research that encourages you to make a decision, as opposed to those that insist you simply take their point as indisputable.

I would classify them as entertainment.

It's very satisfying to reaffirm ones own belief system and/or ideals. And those who already identify with the themes the author is presenting get the most out of the movies your outlining. The ones who already identify really don't bother to consider if those ideas are being presented accurately or in proper context. Because they are enjoying the high from ego stroke.

It's a kind of intellectual pornography...

it can hardly be unbiased if someone holds a conclusion and/or a belief prior to watching something (regardless of subject matter), only to have those beliefs reaffirmed and reinforced simply because of a film!

there's also the flip-side to that, for instance, enough evidence is produced to support a statement made and the evidence is simply ignored...like, the swine flu topic which has simply been abandoned.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:it can hardly be unbiased if someone holds a conclusion and/or a belief prior to watching something (regardless of subject matter), only to have those beliefs reaffirmed and reinforced simply because of a film!

there's also the flip-side to that, for instance, enough evidence is produced to support a statement made and the evidence is simply ignored...like, the swine flu topic which has simply been abandoned.

I don't know about that; there was two articles in the paper today concerning swine flue. And they were handing out pamphlets at the university to get ready for flu season.

Greased Gerbil wrote:I've been trying to grasp something for a while now. It pertains to the methods used both by people I debate with personally, and debate posts here in this section. As a social sciences graduate, I have been drilled for years in the art of conducting research following a number of methodologies. One concept, however, remained constant...

Reliable evidence.

Not only in writing papers/articles/reports, but also in general topical discussion, is citing relevant and reliable sources extremely important. One thing, however, strikes me (and makes me sad) about modern debating methods. People seem to no longer rely on reliable sources of information; and worse, attempt to use unreliable evidence as a tool to contradict properly operationalised and reasoned arguments. This, I have given a name:

Michael Moore Syndrome

This occurs when someone takes a radically biased "documentary", made to blatantly serve a particular agenda, and attempts to pass it off Oas fact (and worse, attempts to pass it off as neutral). These films are interesting, but need to be taken with a grain of salt. They are not indisputable fact, there are facts that they have omitted, and alternative points of view.

How reliable do you think these "documentaries" are as sources of evidence? What would you classify as "reliable evidence"?

They are someone's view over a certain issue/problem/situation and therefor CANNT be considered "evidence".EVIDENCE is related to factuality,time and environment.Someone saying it happened some time ago in America says nothing,but it does make you wonder which paves the road to finding out yourself!