|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 15, 2014 23:26:28 GMT
For the column I'm doing, I just did a piece in which I encourage people to go out and find as many sources of information as possible when it comes to learning about things. The backdrop for this discussion is a hypothetical report on the Battle of Midway (I have two very good books that discuss it, but both works have their limits and should be taken in context with both each other and other sources).
I'm thinking about following it up with one or more columns on the importance of evaluating the quality of potential sources and how one can tell if a resource is bogus or not.
Any ideas on how I can approach this and what sources might already be out there?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 16, 2014 2:43:29 GMT
I'd be tempted to use the analogy of dating;
A primary source would be someone who dated Mr (or Ms) X, lets say Mr Y.
A secondary source would be someone who talked to someone who dated Ms X, lets call them Mr Z.
In both cases you need to do more than take those people at their word. If Mr Y had a bad break up with Ms X then negative comments have to be taken with a pinch of salt, as they may be giving opinions rather than facts (or letting their feelings push more positive aspects of the relationship aside). Mr Z may only be getting half the story, as Mr Y might only have talked about the negative aspects of the relationship to him.
With historical sources we also need to factor in the possibility that comments and 'facts' are being made in an attempt to discuss something else. For example the image we have of the British Royal Navy circa 1790 is one of continual and harsh floggings. However those writing and propagating such stories were actually trying to make a point about the morality and usefulness of capital punishment (or flogging at least) in regards its use on land. (A sailor might, if he was really unlucky, get 24 lashes at sea for stealing - something that was considered a VERY serious offense. The same man on land would most likely get a 100 lashes). Likewise the stories about the 'Death Ray' (covered by Mythbusters, of course) were written by a man who was better known for satire. It seems rather likely that his story about the Death Ray was intended to highlight the absurd excuses Roman Generals (or Rome itself) came up with to excuse loosing battles.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 16, 2014 9:09:41 GMT
You can never have too many sources.
I have seen an entire school of thought dismissed as a conspiracy theorist bunch of loosers by one person. one sentence, one thought... "why"?...
As in why would anyone do that.
This is why I am always the cynic.
I will "Follow the money" to find out who stands to make most by their point of view.
Including the fact that a certain natural history museum absolutely refused to believe new research for the simple reason they had just spent a small fortune on a display which was now invalid.....
So on to my own particular brand of chaos... experience archaeology, take what they had at the time and see how far you can get.
Turns out a Human powered trebuchet can do surprising amount of damage, and is infinitely more portable.
As in, get a team to carry the thing into battle, what do they do now?.. stand about and watch?.. how about use them as the "weight" to power the thing, they can now hit-and-run before there is return fire.....
Who Knew?...
Well, ok, its news to me, but I always said you learn something new every day.
And if I had given up on the half ton rock powered design, I wouldnt have investigated further....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 16, 2014 16:00:27 GMT
you should definitely have the parable of the blind men and the elephant somewhere in there.
(summary: a group of blind men decided to see what an elephant was. one felt its leg, and said, "Aha, an elephant is like a tree" another felt its tail and said "aha, an elephant is like a rope" another felt its trunk and said, "aha, an elephant is like a snake" and so on.)
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 24, 2014 18:17:00 GMT
www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.htmlI'm thinking about opening my hypothetical column up with a reference to the (in)famous Mosser-Owen Report from 1997. Carl Mosser and Paul Owen were grad students pursuing degrees in theology. They decided to survey works written in favor of and against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and study whatever trends they identified while doing so. For the pro-LDS works, they discovered that the level of sophistication was growing, due both to more individual members becoming educated in the relevant issues and to more individual members finding more coherent means of putting forth their arguments. In essence, these works were increasingly semi-professional in quality and scope. For the anti-LDS works, the pair noted the opposite trend. They found that the authors of the works they had surveyed had essentially become lazy. Whereas the pro-LDS authors were actively studying the issues being disputed and forming new conclusions, the anti-LDS authors were largely content with regurgitating old arguments, arguments that had mostly been answered years ago but which were still in circulation because these individuals had completely failed to fact-check them. Instead, these authors had chosen to leave their mark via spin and personal invective. As such, these so-called "experts" were largely blowing smoke. I'm looking to use this as a jumping-off point to explain that just because someone claims to be an "expert" doesn't mean that they always know what they're talking about. How does this sound?
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 29, 2014 10:55:11 GMT
Bad move.?
May I suggest you start with something not so antagonistic?...
You are arguing against religion (Even if you are not) and some people will see that as a direct attack on themselves and their own religion, even if it is not, even if the religion in question is not theirs.
We call those the serially offended.
Some people have minds so closed the federal bank could use them as deposit boxes for diamonds......
Religion is, it says so in the good book, thou shalt NOT question the good book, because it says you cant in the book.
Exactly... but the experts who wrote "The good book" must always be placed beyond suspicion, thou shalt not question their work.
Then on the other side you have the ANTI-Religion, who will argue if the good book says the sky was blue, we should question if it was a cloudy day when they wrote that part.
You have to look at your potential audience, and how much they will side with one side or another.
If you in any way question religion, you will get an automatic "Thou shalt NOT" from those who would rather believe than know.
In my experience, even when people are wrong beyond any doubt, they will stand by an invalid point, just because the good book says so.
Example....
The animals were led in two by two, every animal under the sun....
So what about the Nocturnal ones?
What about the ones we only just discovered?...
I put this to a clergy man when I was 10, and got told to go away, politely, as I was too young to be asking such questions...
This angered me.
Religion WILL cause an argument.
And that argument will have nothing to do with the subject you wish to investigate.
So I ask can you find something less antagonistic by subject to investigate, something that no one really cares about being right or wrong on, as long as progress is being made....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 29, 2014 22:47:06 GMT
Bad move.? May I suggest you start with something not so antagonistic?... You are arguing against religion (Even if you are not) and some people will see that as a direct attack on themselves and their own religion, even if it is not, even if the religion in question is not theirs. We call those the serially offended. Some people have minds so closed the federal bank could use them as deposit boxes for diamonds...... Religion is, it says so in the good book, thou shalt NOT question the good book, because it says you cant in the book. Exactly... but the experts who wrote "The good book" must always be placed beyond suspicion, thou shalt not question their work. Then on the other side you have the ANTI-Religion, who will argue if the good book says the sky was blue, we should question if it was a cloudy day when they wrote that part. You have to look at your potential audience, and how much they will side with one side or another. If you in any way question religion, you will get an automatic "Thou shalt NOT" from those who would rather believe than know. In my experience, even when people are wrong beyond any doubt, they will stand by an invalid point, just because the good book says so. Example.... The animals were led in two by two, every animal under the sun.... So what about the Nocturnal ones? What about the ones we only just discovered?... I put this to a clergy man when I was 10, and got told to go away, politely, as I was too young to be asking such questions... This angered me. Religion WILL cause an argument. And that argument will have nothing to do with the subject you wish to investigate. So I ask can you find something less antagonistic by subject to investigate, something that no one really cares about being right or wrong on, as long as progress is being made.... and you are reading in a lot of after-the-fact interpretation just in that little bit. I believe the count was 7 of every ritually clean animal and two of each ritually unclean animal, except for water dwelling animals. those allegedly arrived on their own - and there is a good chance they were per SPECIES rather than per variation. but in this case the example cited is an LDS-centric example cited to an LDS-centric audience. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 29, 2014 23:03:00 GMT
Actually, I was looking at the Mosser-Owen Report because it was an academic paper (their master's thesis) and this is a college town of sorts.
While there is a pronounced LDS presence, we're still a minority.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 29, 2014 23:32:38 GMT
Actually, I was looking at the Mosser-Owen Report because it was an academic paper (their master's thesis) and this is a college town of sorts. While there is a pronounced LDS presence, we're still a minority. considering that statistically, people who go to church are in the minority compared to people who have never gone to church (or at least not with any regularity at all)... But I had been under the impression your community had the LDS congregation in a more prominent position in the community than average. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 30, 2014 0:05:38 GMT
Individual members are prominent, but one doesn't have to go far to find plenty of people who are so eager to bash us that they don't let the facts get in their way.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 30, 2014 9:52:56 GMT
Individual members are prominent, but one doesn't have to go far to find plenty of people who are so eager to bash us that they don't let the facts get in their way. Created by prejudice caused by bad experience misunderstandings ignorance and plain bad press by word-of-mouth rumour .... Usually started by "The other church in town" who is a little scared of the competition..... Take this viewpoint and argue it out. If you are not a City fan, you must be a United fan. If you are not a United fan, you must be a City fan. Put Manchester in front of both.... This is the state of play around Manchester and Soccer.... It doesnt matter that I have friends who are Stalybridge fans, Stockport fans, or even FC United, the breakaway team that began over the Glaziers taking hold of Manchester United, there are quite a few Manchester Football teams... see here for a complete list. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_football_clubs_in_Greater_ManchesterHowever, if you meet either a United or a City fan, the above presumption is made, you are either "One of us" or "One of them". I know, I can be damn awkward.... I am a Motorsports fan, so none of the above apply. But which team do I side with?... Lotus. Or Caterham. Or McLaren. Or Mercedes, being that the team is based in England... In truth, ANY of the Formula 1 teams based in England.... I cant choose, I just enjoy so much watching them race. But thats NOT football.... And that, my friend, to the public in Manchester, is WORSE then saying I am an atheist. Bill Shankly, one of footballs legends, 1981. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Nov 30, 2014 13:07:54 GMT
I would avoid getting into any religious stuff, especially anything regarding Mormonism. Mormonism is controversial on a good day, but with as much as they have been in the news lately, any point you try to make is going to be completely lost under people arguing over Mitt Romney and Joseph Smith's polyandry. It would save a lot of headache to just avoid the topic entirely. Stick to the topic at hand to reduce people going off on tangents.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 30, 2014 15:46:25 GMT
I would avoid getting into any religious stuff, especially anything regarding Mormonism. Mormonism is controversial on a good day, but with as much as they have been in the news lately, any point you try to make is going to be completely lost under people arguing over Mitt Romney and Joseph Smith's polyandry. It would save a lot of headache to just avoid the topic entirely. Stick to the topic at hand to reduce people going off on tangents. polyandry is one wife, multiple husbands. but the point is well made - if the topic of the example is controversial, the essay just went from teaching about sources to arguing the topic. you would be better off finding a disproven idea, like the idea that people would suffocate if they went over 60 MPH in an open vehicle, and using that as your example of choosing valid sources. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Nov 30, 2014 23:43:34 GMT
Actually, the LDS church has come out and admitted that Joseph Smith married multiple women, some of whom were already married to other men. So there was both polygamy and polyandry going on there. There were also a few teenage brides in there as well, a couple were as young as 14. The New York Times put out an article about it a week or two ago. www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/us/its-official-mormon-founder-had-up-to-40-wives.html?_r=0 |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Dec 2, 2014 19:39:17 GMT
Actually, the LDS church has come out and admitted that Joseph Smith married multiple women, some of whom were already married to other men. So there was both polygamy and polyandry going on there. There were also a few teenage brides in there as well, a couple were as young as 14. The New York Times put out an article about it a week or two ago. www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/us/its-official-mormon-founder-had-up-to-40-wives.html?_r=0And there you go... Even though we're a relatively good bunch here when it comes to sticking to the point at hand, some are already starting to veer off topic, proving SD's point that if the topic has any sort of controversy surrounding it, the point of the article will be lost in arguments (however factual) about the LDS and not about your original intent, which was to discuss source evaluation. I understand that you'd like to use this as an example because it's something of personal importance to you. But if it's important to you, chances are it'll also be important to someone else and that not only can, but will start arguments that you never intended to start. As TLW says, I'd go with something more well known where the argument has already been settled. That or make up a fictional story that people can relate to, like the one Cyber suggested. It minimizes the risk that people will miss your point and argue the material you've used to demonstrate it instead. Keep away from religion, politics or finances and stick with either hard, commonly known science or fictitious personal plots that people can relate to. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 3, 2014 9:06:58 GMT
Most of the "Handbag wars" that I have ever been a part of on the internet have been totally off topic.
[Handbag wars.... if you can imagine two slightly effeminate drag queens swinging handbags at each other, its how I imagine two keyboard warriors fighting?... ]
Some twonka's will start an argument shortly after they have been proved wrong to disguise the fact they were wrong... I know of more than one case where someone I have tackled would make the whole thread an argument to force the moderators to delete the whole thing because their humiliation on being wrong was to embarrassing for them.
People who have believed something their whole life and are now proved wrong can be quite embarrassed about their incapacity to accept.
Dragon rules,
ALWAYS be gentle....
Suggest further reading for the target to investigate, where they may find out from someone else.
Argue the point not the poster.
Know your target... if you can make fun of them, and they are OK, thats fine... but if they are liable to go ape-shirt at you, make it polite concise and to the point.
If you have a troll, ignore the above.
And I have swung handbags....
My reason, whilst they are picking on me, they are leaving some poor sod who doesnt deserve it alone.
Plus I enjoy the arguments some times...
Prior to being a moderator elsewhere, I tackled a troll who was just plain nasty.
I know they were banned by AOL, and eventually, after long investigation, AOL removed their internet.
This was all over the fact someone decided to take a stand against their absolute belief that they drove better with a few beers inside them.
Myth busted by the way, you dont, it has been proved by medical science, road traffic safety organizations, and many others as well.
If we remember back to the old place, we has someone who's firm belief was if they chose to ride skateboard down a pedestrian walkway, it was everyone elses duty to get out of their way.....
Some peoples beliefs are set in concrete.
You will NOT change them.
So Dragon Rule number one is know when you are flogging the greasy space where a horse once died.
Plus I know "someone" who tried to "Educate" me on how bad smoking was.
That made me stop trying to give up, it effectively elongated my smoking habit for another two years before I decided that it was time to do it for myself.
Its been nearly two years now since I gave up, but, if anyone EVER says to me "I told you so" I will go out of my way to light up in front of them....
Stubborn?.. me?.. I invented the word, ok?... prove I didnt....
Now you know, you wont change me, so, knowing that, take a look at yourself, how would you react if someone tried to change your beliefs?...
And sod religious beliefs at this point, take a deeper look, you believe the world is a ball shape?.. what if I could prove its not?.. what if I could prove its slightly wider at one point than it is at another?..
What?.. yeah, I know there are some people who will argue the world is flat.
And then there is a whole bunch of stupid who believe the world is only 6,000 yrs old... creationists....?...
And look at the FURY vented at Darwin on the origin of species....
Changing peoples beliefs on mass is a dangerous topic...
Tread carefully.
I know my slightly irreverent style and half joking method of writing is meant to be a humorous look at this topic, but can I say, take my experiences as worth remembering...
People are people, and this post is 100% life experience true.
[editorial note, I DID invent the word stubborn... honest.... ok, so I believe I invented the word stubborn.... does that make it better?..]
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 3, 2014 15:13:14 GMT
and then you have the people who enter a conversation with the assumption that the other person is wrong - regardless of topic, subject, context, or anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Dec 3, 2014 19:12:46 GMT
Most of the "Handbag wars" that I have ever been a part of on the internet have been totally off topic. [Handbag wars.... if you can imagine two slightly effeminate drag queens swinging handbags at each other, its how I imagine two keyboard warriors fighting?... ]And I have swung handbags.... And this is now the picture in my mind:  Sorry! Had to get it off my chest!  Oh, and by the way. The earth IS flat! AAAAAALLLL the way around |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 4, 2014 0:38:45 GMT
Most of the "Handbag wars" that I have ever been a part of on the internet have been totally off topic. [Handbag wars.... if you can imagine two slightly effeminate drag queens swinging handbags at each other, its how I imagine two keyboard warriors fighting?... ]And I have swung handbags.... And this is now the picture in my mind: Sorry! Had to get it off my chest! Oh, and by the way. The earth IS flat! AAAAAALLLL the way around it IS flat - I understand if you scale it down to the size of a ping pong ball, the ping pong ball will be rougher. |
|
|
|
Post by tacitus on Dec 4, 2014 2:02:15 GMT
I'm always suspicious of the basis for legendary feats. My experience is that hype and exaggeration are usually at play, yet seldom are such claims questioned. Along those lines, I'd always thought the legend of Carlos Hathcock smelled wrong, so a few years ago I found the 1st Marine Division's operational reports on line and delved into them.
In Henderson's book on Hathcock, there is the claim that in a 30 day period straddling two months, Hathcock alone had 30 confirmed kills ("forget probables") and the rest of the divisional sniper school (to include students) accounted for an additional 30 confirmed kills. That's fully a third of his 'record' total of 93 being racked up in his first 30 days of sniping. Kind of, well, hard to believe? So I checked the daily operational reports. These had a separate paragraph that listed the total number of sniper teams available each day, how many were employed that day and the results of those missions. The results included both confirmed KIA and WIA, as well as probables in both categories. The daily SITREPs also had narrative descriptions of every combat action each day, down to such specific items as the number of suspected VC sympathizers questioned, ineffective incoming sniper fire, as well as larger firefights. Grid coordinates were included (for sniping events, grids included both shooters' locations and targets' locations).
Result? Since I couldn't tell which 4 weeks of the two months that the book referenced (Oct & Nov) I totaled up the score for both months (60 days instead of 30). Instead of 60 confirmed KIA for 30 days, there were in fact just 4 confirmed sniper KIAs for a 60 day period in the ENTIRE DIVISION. And . . . there was only 1 listed in the probable category, and that was a WIA. [There were two additional instances where a number was listed in the results column with no description of KIA, WIA, confirmed or probable. Further, the narrative section made no reference to sniper activity those days. As a result, it appeared the number were typos, carried over from the previous columns.] Worse, of the 4 kills that were documented, none matched Hathcock's tales for that time frame, or he was not present in the particular AO where the kills were made (per the book's narrative of his activities).
So instead of 93 confirmed kills, at best he could claim just something over 60. Maybe. But that scope of exaggeration over 60 days indicates the rest of his tally was equally suspect. So I tallied up the numbers for Dec, with similar lack of results. Supposedly he got 60 kills in the 6+ months of sniping of his first tour (for the first half of that tour he was an MP), with the first 3 months accounting for the great majority of those kills. In reality less than 5 confirmed kills during that 3 month period could even remotely be associated with him. This basically destroyed some of his most famous feats, like killing the Apache (there was no record of her depredations to the garrison of Hill 55, either) and shooting the Chinese colonel (which tale appears to have been 'borrowed' from the SITREP account of another sniper at the opposite end of the TAOR from where Hathcock was located).
Unfortunately, after Dec the daily SITREPs were not available on line, so I couldn't check individual sniping tallies. Operational summaries were available, however, which permitted checking the big events. Needless to say, major incidents, such as the entire Elephant Valley episode can't be substantiated, despite the fact that it supposedly resulted in what would have been one of - if not THE - largest bags of enemy that month.
Hathcock's entire fame rests on his kill total, yet virtually no one has thought to check its accuracy. 'If it's in print, it must be true.' And the claim has been taken up and republished in so many other books and magazines that it is blindly accepted as fact. It's gotten to the point that if you question it, you are likely to be immediately attacked for even daring to doubt the accepted 'truth'.
Strongly recommend that wherever possible, go back and check original sources. They may not always be accurate, but they are a great place to see how far afield subsequent authors may have strayed with the truth.
|
|
