Fallacies, useful to know for writers.

[StilLearning]

>Citing your sources is, in theory, a good thing because it allows other people to check where you've got your ideas, approach, and contributing knowledge from
This isn't just in theory, it's the crux. As a historian I cite sources because other historians read my stuff and wherever they have a question, or wherever something sparks their interest, they can follow through. If I do not cite sources, then my work--regardless of how good or bad it is--becomes a dead end. It closes off the scholarly dialogue. I don't cite sources to show how great my argument is, I do it as a courtesy to others.

Yes, hence why I say it has value - but my point is that, as you say, it isn't a way to show your model of things or argument is valid and useful. Citing is of value to the wider community. But, [EDIT] at least in a field that is primarily concerned with investigation-by-experiment as mine was [END DEDIT], your model is chiefly shown valid (or not) by independent investigation.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

>Citing your sources is, in theory, a good thing because it allows other people to check where you've got your ideas, approach, and contributing knowledge from
This isn't just in theory, it's the crux. As a historian I cite sources because other historians read my stuff and wherever they have a question, or wherever something sparks their interest, they can follow through. If I do not cite sources, then my work--regardless of how good or bad it is--becomes a dead end. It closes off the scholarly dialogue. I don't cite sources to show how great my argument is, I do it as a courtesy to others.

Also, not that anyone asked, here's the difference between citations (footnotes) and a bibliography. Citations show specifically where I got specific information. The bibliography shows everything I consulted, whether or not I used a specific work on a specific point. The bibliography provides the general reader all the information needed to follow threads. It also lets the specialist know more or less how current I am, and whether I've overlooked important sources.

So the scholarly thread goes something like this: reader reads along and sees something interesting or dubious. Huh, where'd he get that? Oh, there's a footnote, which provides a specific book and page number(s). But it's often a kind of shorthand, that citation, so reader flips to the bibliography for the full form and sees exactly the publisher, year, edition, etc., so they can go to exactly the same source I did. If those things are not provided, the reader can go no further than my own claims, or at least not without doing a ridiculous amount of additional research. So, courtesy and scholarly dialogue. (note: not every culture has the same values regarding this)

Recently I read an article critical of a particular early 20th century author related to one of the the author's sources. The critic had quoted the revised version of the referenced text in his criticism. In this case, the critic was responding to a portion of the revised reference book that was not present in the original.

Bibliography specifics sometimes matter a lot.

 

[Phyrebrat]

How many times have you come across one of these folks… I had to cut off a friend who repeatedly spoke like this and became a thankless note to communicate with

 

[Justin Swanton]

>Citing your sources is, in theory, a good thing because it allows other people to check where you've got your ideas, approach, and contributing knowledge from
This isn't just in theory, it's the crux. As a historian I cite sources because other historians read my stuff and wherever they have a question, or wherever something sparks their interest, they can follow through. If I do not cite sources, then my work--regardless of how good or bad it is--becomes a dead end. It closes off the scholarly dialogue. I don't cite sources to show how great my argument is, I do it as a courtesy to others.

Also, not that anyone asked, here's the difference between citations (footnotes) and a bibliography. Citations show specifically where I got specific information. The bibliography shows everything I consulted, whether or not I used a specific work on a specific point. The bibliography provides the general reader all the information needed to follow threads. It also lets the specialist know more or less how current I am, and whether I've overlooked important sources.

So the scholarly thread goes something like this: reader reads along and sees something interesting or dubious. Huh, where'd he get that? Oh, there's a footnote, which provides a specific book and page number(s). But it's often a kind of shorthand, that citation, so reader flips to the bibliography for the full form and sees exactly the publisher, year, edition, etc., so they can go to exactly the same source I did. If those things are not provided, the reader can go no further than my own claims, or at least not without doing a ridiculous amount of additional research. So, courtesy and scholarly dialogue. (note: not every culture has the same values regarding this)

Agreed, though I find that in historical research is that there are sources and sources. My own experience in the field of military history in Antiquity (I did a study of formations and tactics, notably the Greek and Macedonian phalanx and the Roman legion) is that historians don't pay enough attention to the primary sources in the original language and that when it comes to translations there are often vicious circles: a popular theory influences a translator to translate a relevant passage in a way that supports that theory, confirming it and further influencing translations of that passage, and so on. I'm happy to give examples in private if you like. My favourite are the translations of Livy that serve to confirm the quincunx.

My mistake was probably to ignore the secondary authorities once I realised they were off track. I should have quoted them anyway, even if to demonstrate where I thought they went wrong. BTW I did quote plenty of contemporary authorities whom I felt were on the money. Don't want to sound too arrogant.

 

[sknox]

Historians who don't pay attention to the primary sources ought not be writing monographs on the topic. That it's attention paid to the source in the original language goes without saying. Once upon a time, I was going to be a Hansa historian. Then I found out that, in addition to the standard Latin, French, and German for any medievalist, I was also looking at Polish, Russian, and Swedish at a minimum. Moreover, I would of course have to learn not only the modern version of each to read the secondary literature, I'd need to learn the late medieval version of whatever specific localities I studied.

And that was the end of that!

 

[Wayne Mack]

For writers, the biggest fallacy is, it's almost complete.

 

[Omits]

I prefer illogical fallacies. They're more fun, plus pixies like 'em as a treat.

Trying to get my head round 'illogical fallacy'. If it is an argument that doesn't sound convincing it's a bit of a paradox?

 

[sknox]

I was being silly. I think "logical fallacy" is redundant,so I offered its opposite.

 

[Biskit]

One of the most prevalent right now is the Appeal to authority fallacy.
Particularly "It said on the news that..."
Or worse, the nebulous "Experts say..." when the experts are unnamed and may not even be experts, simply people with a bias giving their opinions.

I really was an expert, a decade or two back. The trouble with us experts is knowing a lot about something very narrow, and not always taking account of the wider picture. This is why experts like me are usually kept on a short leash by people who want to spin the big picture.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

I really was an expert, a decade or two back. The trouble with us experts is knowing a lot about something very narrow, and not always taking account of the wider picture. This is why experts like me are usually kept on a short leash by people who want to spin the big picture.

I have a lot of knowledge in my field as well. And I've talked with other people that are experts in their fields. We have noticed an interesting phenomena in general reporting.

The reporter will interview somebody with a very specific point of view and the reporter will do some subject area research. And frequently every statement by the reporter will be factual and yet the report completely misses the point and is, in its essence completely wrong.

And since I can report to all of you that 98% of all reporting on my area of knowledge is incorrect in its summaries and conclusions, and such is true for reporting in other areas as well. So, I figure all reporting must be completely without merit.

Looking up data = subject area knowledge fallacy.

 

[Astro Pen]

Another dubious appeal to (nameless) authority. Is "Community leaders". Community leaders say yadda yadda...
Well let me ask you this Mr newscaster -
Who is your community leader???
Oh! Surprise surprise. You don't have one?
Well neither do the rest of us, we are individuals. We are not sheep and no one speaks for us as community 'leader', nor have we appointed anyone to do so.