Originally Posted by
ImmortalPig
I think this is a very important part of the way this discussion board works. For example in a recent thread hanz0 stepped in and lay down a lot of knowledge in a field that he is qualified to speak about. It was a really great thread. A lot of the threads in this forum ride on opinion, and none of us are really qualified.
In threads where expert knowledge is not brought to hand, there are a few ways things can go.
A) Randomly spouting opinions and ignoring all facts: http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=419884
B) Heavy use of varied citations and second hand knowledge (with salt): http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=423511
Thread A doesn't work because people are too invested in to their opinion. When shown the facts, they just can't bear it, they become adversarial. Thread B (so far) has worked nicely because the focus has been on gathering information and discussing the issue, rather than determining who is right.
It's not great to just take someone's opinion as fact, even if they say they are qualified. However everyone's opinion should be respected the way hanz0's was in the first thread, and everyone should make use of citations when establishing facts.
These are some excellent points.
I feel like a lot of it is context-based. If you're making a major claim or trying to rebut someone's points then yeah, you probably want to cite some credible sources
even if you're qualified to speak on a particular field.
In the thread that you linked, I felt comfortable going without sources in several of my posts for one major reason: Because I have an education and experience in that particular field, I felt like I wasn't so much 'debating' as disseminating knowledge that was necessary to understand and thereby discuss the topic. Because I was reasonably qualified to speak on that particular topic, I knew that many of the references and papers I was drawing from were
way too technical for the average user, and it was therefore easier for me to simply summarize the pertinent information in layman's terms. Could I have properly cited all the information I posted? Yeah, but all it would have done was a. reestablish my credibility and b. confuse a whole bunch of people. That said, during the period that I was actively involved in the discussion, I did keep the primary references I was using in open tabs, on the off chance that someone else was also educated on the topic and wanted to know what I was drawing from.
Really it all seems to come down to how well people understand the topic. If you've got a solid background and are qualified to talk about the topic then great, establish your credibility and discuss away (But you should still cite major points or topics of contention, as well as per request). If you're not qualified? That doesn't mean you don't get to participate - the "how long could we live" thread proves that people lacking my background were fully capable of getting up-to-speed and providing interesting ideas(1). Read up on the topic.
Get to a point where you would feel comfortable explaining, not debating, the major aspects of the topic before you jump in and try to assert your opinion. If you can't seem to get to that point, don't be afraid of asking someone who's there to explain it to you. As I said, much of my contribution to that thread was explaining the background knowledge, and not only did it help the participants but it also helped me develop my ideas. If everyone has a reasonable base of knowledge and can communicate about the basic aspects of the discussion then I think it's far less likely that the thread will degenerate into an opinion-fight. Don't let it turn into a
terrible evolution thread.
Also, try to know what is considered common knowledge, generally accepted, or generally rejected/discredited for the topic. There is nothing more credibility-destroying than presenting an old idea as a new one, a widely accepted idea as "just a theory"(2)(3), or a widely rejected idea as a valid one(3).
In regards to opinions: There's nothing inherently wrong with them. Opinions can and have led to groundbreaking theories, but that doesn't mean you can come into a discussion, give nothing but your opinion, and expect people to listen to you. You're entitled to
have an opinion. That doesn't obligate us to acknowledge, consider, or discuss it. If you want people to respect your opinions you need to substantiate them.
Convince us that your ideas are worth considering - that can be with facts and evidence or with some good solid logic, depending on the topic at hand. There is a big difference between "Well in my opinion, X." and "Based on A, B and C, I believe X."
1. It also proves that other people are terrifyingly incapable of the same, but I'm trying to be positive here.
2. Also, never say "just a theory" when in a scientific discussion.
3. Unless you follow said presentation with legitimate reasons/evidence. For example, certain individuals in the terrible evolution thread presented Lamarckism as a legitimate theory of evolution. Interestingly enough, Lamarckian evolution does kinda exist in the context of epigenetics, but since those individuals were blatantly incapable of or willing to understand even classical genetics, it was rather obvious that that was not the point they were making, and they were therefore quite harshly called out on their claim.
Last edited by hanz0; Sep 4, 2013 at 03:03 AM.