Quote:
Take global warming for instance...... some say it is man made.... some say the Sun is overly active and Mars' icecaps melting show it's not just us, thus it's not manmade, some say it's just hooey, period.
You take a stance and get piles of bullshit proof, I take a stance get piles of bullshit proof.... neither of us have done anything but supply others with piles of bullshit.
|
Take this example a step further....and assume none of us have the expertise to make an informed decision without additional information. What is wrong with bringing relevant source information into the discussion?
The question of the value of sources arises when a secondary source like a glib editorial that attribute global warming to cow flatuence is given the same weight as primarry sources (like the International Panel on Climate Control report or a contradictory scientific report on the impact of solar flares).
I would suggest that discussions without a knowledge base are more irrelevant and provide less of a learning opportunity than sharing source information for others to judge.