Re: [UUPoly-L] Love, Science & Other Subjects

["Catherine Deville" <catdeville@cox.net>]

In a message dated 9/29/2008 6:43:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
desmondravenstone@yahoo.com writes:
> Well, you know...we aren't running a scientific journal here...I don't
> think
> we need citations for every assertion we make.

Except when you're challenging everyone else's assumptions and assertions on
the basis that they can't be "proven" and supporting your arguments with
claims that they are backed up by "studies". 

If you're going to make a claim which you state are backed up by studies,
and you're taking the position of a "scientific skeptic" on things, then,
yes, I expect citations.  Otherwise, your claim that your assertions are
backed up by "studies" is just as valid as the "anecdotal" claims that you
seem to disdain. 

On the one hand you suggest that opinions, assertions and assumptions not
backed up by "proof" are "weak", and on the other you feel that we don't
need citations.  You can't have it both ways.  And you most certainly can't
expect that anyone will be swayed by such an attitude (you have to "prove"
your P.O.V., but I don't have to back up my scientific statements because
they're scientific.) 

Yes, this is supposed to be a friendly list, but if you're going to reduce
discussions to 'arguments', and you're going to challenge other people for
'proof' (especially of their *beliefs* or "opinions"), then you're darn
tootin' that people are going to expect you to present data for "scientific
assertions" and citations for "studies".