Re: threads based on outside references

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@SFU.CA>]

At 07:09 -0700 8/23/99, Richard Tarara wrote:

> ...I guess my point is
> that if this fight is to be carried out on the Phys-L list, the participants
> should keep in mind that their audience IS the WHOLE LIST and not just each
> other...

I would disagree with this view. It is equivalent to my saying that,
because I subscribe to the Physics Teacher, all of its articles
should address my interests.

There are at least two options available to the disgruntled phys-l
member. He may leave the group (I've done that) or he may delete the
threads he finds uninteresting for whatever reason (I've been doing
that for years).

I consult fewer than one cited source in each hundred given in the
scientific papers I read. The citations are meant to be helpful, not
compulsory. It is never correct to assert that "My opinion is better
than yours because I've read more books." Most of us (including me)
would be *prima facie* discredited in "discussions" of creationism
with simpletons like Duane Gish by that criterion. I could claim
that my opinion of "why airplanes can fly" is better than anyone
else's because "I've flown on more airplanes", or "I teach people
how to fly and they succeed in doing so", or "My brother is a
prominent aeronautical engineer" (which is my situation). None of
these should lend force to a scientific statement. They are, simply,
irrelevant.

If a claim attributed to some particular source becomes central to
a discussion then the participants should consult the source. That
is why those citations are there. Surely no author expects that all
of his readers will be familiar with all cited sources. A responsible
author will have consulted all the sources she cites, but believe it
or not, it is common practice to pass along citations without having
done so. There is bad science done, and  all too frequently it
appears in the archival literature and is, itself, cited by more
uncritical authors who may or may not have read it.

Leigh