/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11407140]

books is wild

[Anonymous No.11407289]

The vast majority of people appealing to sources and external authorities don't actually verify them. It's a bluff meme for psueds.

[Anonymous No.11407302]

>>11407289

Half the time if you look up the original source you'll see no one in the professional community takes it seriously.

[Anonymous No.11407309]

>>11407289
I don't think you understand how academia works, an essay being poorly sourced (or not sourced at all) are grounds for terminating scholarships, career and so on.
Of course you think academia is a secret coven of marxist wizards so you won't believe me, but that's ok.

[Anonymous No.11409000]

>>11407309
This guy gets it. I wrote a math paper and it got reamed during peer review because I forgot to cite a major author whose work was an attempt at solving the same problem.

Knowing who else is writing in your field is half the game.

[javascript:quote('4942612');(...) No.11409007]

>>11409000

that sounds more like a problem of academia than some personal failing of yours. Tell them to fuck off, unless you actually care about your academic career. In that case, you are a lost cause.

[Anonymous No.11409013]

>not fabricating footnotes
>and the scholars that comment on their obvious fabrication and urge readers to disregard them as spurious
not gonna make it

[Anonymous No.11409058]

>>11409007
It was definitely a failing of mine. Going back to look at the other author's work made me realize a handful of useful things. When I finished rewriting the paper, I'd changed my approach slightly to make the proofs more elegant and re-framed the issue to clearly differentiate between my approach and his.

Peer review forces people to think more seriously about the problems they're solving, and be more involved in their fields. It's a good thing.

>>11407289 is right when it comes to popsci books, though. Most publishers don't do a very good job checking sources beyond verifying that they exist.

Can't speak to the quality of humanities journals because I'm not in that field, but my friends in the liberal arts department tell me the classics scholars, history of lit scholars, and analytic phil. scholars tend to be anal about footnotes, in a productive way.

[Anonymous No.11409245]

>>11407289
This

I get full marks, straight 4.0s on history papers by including lots of citations to relevant texts, but if you were to actually check my footnotes, you'd find that most of those facts don't exist on those pages. That's because I pick pages based on index entries in books I don't even read and nobody checks so I always get away with it.

[Anonymous No.11409391]

>>11409245
Wow. It's almost like nobody gives a shit about undergrads.

[Anonymous No.11409409]

>>11409245
epic bro, you sure owned the system #schoolcheats

[Anonymous No.11409441]

>>11409391
peer review in most (medical) journals doesn't include reference checking. Nobody really has time for that shit. I have lost count of the times that I've looked up a ref only to discover that it doesn't support the original authors statement anywhere in the article.

[Anonymous No.11409623]

>>11409007
Wow, you're a fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.11409629]

>>11409441
Good thing I don't live in China haha

[Anonymous No.11410303]

>>11407309
Academia is an institution that perpetuates group think. One way to perpetuate group think is to force the next generation to not only read but incorporate past thinking into their current thinking. And proving that you have done so is done by (((sources))).

[Anonymous No.11410533]

Folks, can we all agree there's a spectrum here?
Blind appeals to authority are bad. Judging a work based on how many sources it cites is bad. Jamming external references1 and citations2 everywhere to trick the casual reader into perceiving your work as more solidly substantiated than it really is is very bad.
But ignoring what's come before you and reinventing the wheel is just plain stupid.

[Anonymous No.11410536]

>>11410533
(fucking Christ I went out of my way to find the little superscript characters for added effect and 4chan just turned them into regular numerals. Dang main.

[Anonymous No.11410560]

>>11410533
but i want to have a black-and-white position so i can either laugh at academics or mock pseuds

[Anonymous No.11410602]

>>11407309
This only applies to STEM.
Humanities fails at this horrifically (in practice).

[Anonymous No.11410946]

Lol'd

[Anonymous No.11411056]

>>11407140
source?

[Anonymous No.11411449]

>>11410602
wrong

[Anonymous No.11411453]

>>11409245
mom's gonna freak

[Anonymous No.11411460]

>>11410602
Did you ever take more than one class in a real Humanities department?
Do you know what happened to Nietzsche's career?

[Anonymous No.11411462]

All academics must die.

[Anonymous No.11411645]

>>11407289
The Adam Ruins Everything series is really the pinnacle example of this. They're very proud of quoting sources and never forget to mention this in their pr but actually investigating it I don't know why they would even bother (even if what the bulk of what they're saying is accurate)

[Anonymous No.11411660]

First one is Kaczynski, second Wittgenstein, but who's the third quote?

[Anonymous No.11411690]

>>11411645
There was one video of his that really irked me. I can't remember which one it was, though. I just remember every time he made a claim, the source would appear at the bottom of the screen. The problem was it was literally the same source for every claim in the video, and it was a relatively dubious source at that.

[Anonymous No.11411692]

>>11410602
There are so many examples of humanities bigwigs citing badly or falsely, and being basically discredited as professionals for it. Maybe no one cares at an undergrad level, but once you get past third year you'd better smarten up or you're going to get fucking reamed.

[Anonymous No.11411699]

>>11411660
Nikolai Berdyaev

[Anonymous No.11413223]

>>11409441
Can you cite some examples?

[Anonymous No.11413235]

>>11407140
I strongly agree with this sentiment. Proof is ghey and Socrates was a nigger

[Anonymous No.11413450]

>>11410303
>Academia is an institution that perpetuates group think.
t. has never seen two humanities professors in the same room together

[Anonymous No.11413466]

>>11413450
That is literally just the effete low testosterone cardiocel version of fighting, they believe exactly the same, but they have to establish dominance.

[Anonymous No.11413712]

>>11413466
Let me give you an anecdote from a "discussion" (i.e. poorly-moderated debate) I attended.
>Speakers A and B were both gender studies professors.
>Speaker A was a 2nd-wave feminist who believed that womanhood means "possessing a womb."
>Speaker B, on the other hand, was a 3rd-waver who believed that womanhood means "performing femininity."
>In the opening remarks, speaker A insisted that MtF trans people are not, even if they pass as female, women.
>Speaker B immediately countered with the assertion that "trans women are women."
>The actual topic of the discussion (how effective was the feminism of the 1980s?) got completely sidelined in the back-and-forth about gender.
>After 15 minutes, the "host" (i.e. moderator with no spine) reminded them that the actual topic had little to do with trans philosophy.
>Both speaker A and speaker B take turns putting the moderator on blast for saying this.
>Speaker A calls speaker B a traitor for selling her gender out to undercover men.
>People start to leave as the "discussion" becomes a straight-up shouting match.
Speaker A and speaker B had conflicting beliefs both in general (womb vs performance) and in specific (MtF trans people are/aren't women). Neither was going to convince the other of her belief. And it was funny af to watch.

>tl;dr academics can and do disagree with each other.

[Anonymous No.11413784]

>>11411462
Without academics there would be no computers, no internet, and no medicine to keep you alive fuckface

[Anonymous No.11413795]

>>11413784
computers and the internet were developed by the military and then popularized by private capital, faggy academics didnt do shit except train some code monkeys

[Anonymous No.11413802]

>>11413784
>he uses """"medicine""""
The frail constitution of the academiacel revealed at last

[Anonymous No.11413839]

>>11413712
I'm sorry that you had to sit through this

[Anonymous No.11413869]

>>11410303

Wow, interesting thesis, how do you explain change in thought though? If all academia does is perpetuate groupthink by incorporating past thought why is it then that universities aren't doing medieval scholastics anymore?

[Anonymous No.11413926]

>>11413869
We all still read Aquinad and those inspired by him, tbqhfam

[Anonymous No.11413950]

>>11407140
>books is wild

[Anonymous No.11413974]

>>11409007
>no MOM I don’t WANNA do it their way it’s DUMB
how 2 spot a pseud 101

[Anonymous No.11414016]

>>11413784
Seriously this. People never invented things until they invented schools. Wait...

[Anonymous No.11414026]

>>11413450
Yes, the great schisms of the humanities, principally marked by disagreeing on what decades-dead people actually thought.

Thanks for proving his point.

[Anonymous No.11414033]

>>11413869
Generally caused by people who refuse to participate in the group-think, typically labeled as radicals and largely shunned during their life time, almost always for eschewing the old and presenting ideas wholly their own (or as close to that as possible.)

Again, thanks for proving his point.

[Anonymous No.11414109]

>>11414026
>people in academia disagree
>somehow this is evidence for group-think among academics
Ah, yes, this big-brained individual is so much smarter than accredited professors.

[Anonymous No.11414558]

>>11414109
cursed image

[Anonymous No.11414657]

>>11413784
>implying humanities profs are doing anything even remotely comparable to STEM researchers

[Anonymous No.11414694]

>>11407140
What books are these?

[Anonymous No.11414711]

>>11414109

Truth is ur """"edge"""" wont ever get u laid son

[Anonymous No.11414850]

>>11407140
Which works are you citing?
>inb4 none they all came from a dream

[Anonymous No.11414905]

>>11409245
>t. attends directional state university

[Anonymous No.11415018]

>>11409245

Based

[Anonymous No.11415060]

>>11413223
No. Lest he creates a paradox

[Anonymous No.11415076]

>>11409007
The funny thing is you probably think you're intelligent.

[Anonymous No.11415358]

>>11409013
>Not engaging in a international conspiracy to create fake citations and whole schools of philosophy with other academics

[Anonymous No.11415371]

>>11411056

[Anonymous No.11415376]

>>11414694
>>11414850
See >>11415371

[Anonymous No.11416638]

>>11415371
Thanks for the citations.

[Anonymous No.11418108]

>>11415371
This made me laugh more than it should have.

[Anonymous No.11418838]

>>11414711
:^)

[Anonymous No.11418901]

>>11407309
>an essay being poorly sourced (or not sourced at all) are grounds for terminating scholarships, career and so on.
oh no, a bunch of certifiable nincompoops might not approve of my writing because they're to unintelligent to judge content and rely wholly on empty signaling.

>>11410303
this

[Anonymous No.11418908]

>>11415358
This guy gets it

[Anonymous No.11418953]

>>11413712
imagine believing this is a meaningful disagreement and representative of viewpoint diversity in academia.

the sad part is i guarantee you no terfs will even be hired today, but i guess that's fine because all things considered i hate trans people less than women, colored people, and regular gays

[Anonymous No.11418959]

imagine believing this is a meaningful disagreement and indicative of viewpoint diversity in academia.

the sad part is i guarantee you no terfs will even be hired today, but i guess that's fine because all things considered i hate trans people less than women, colored people, and regular gays

[Anonymous No.11418967]

>>11413712
imagine believing this is a meaningful disagreement and indicative of viewpoint diversity in academia.

the sad part is i guarantee you no terfs will even be hired today, but i guess that's fine because all things considered i hate trans people less than women, colored people, and regular gays

[Anonymous No.11418977]

>>11415358
prove to me this isn't already a thing

[Anonymous No.11418999]

>>11409245
You're not to think you are anything special.
You're not to think you are as good as we are.
You're not to think you are smarter than we are.
You're not to imagine yourself better than we are.
You're not to think you know more than we do.
You're not to think you are more important than we are.
You're not to think you are good at anything.
You're not to laugh at us.
You're not to think anyone cares about you.
You're not to think you can teach us anything.

[Anonymous No.11419006]

>>11407309
>>11409000
I think you're mistaking the expectations of a student for the choices of a master

[Anonymous No.11419115]

>>11409245
>t.

[Anonymous No.11419129]

>>11407140
Who is this mad man? Jacques Ellul?

[Anonymous No.11419151]

>>11418901
I bet you're lazy and skewer shady info to support your edgy arguments

[Anonymous No.11420604]

>>11419151
where's the lie

[Anonymous No.11421109]

>>11413839
That sounds fun to watch, like a sitcom improv.

[Anonymous No.11421116]

>>11420604
Oh, so you admit?

[Anonymous No.11421768]

>>11409245
Absolute fucking madman

[Anonymous No.11421776]

I’ve been laughing at op’s picture for a couple days now. Great stuff.

[Anonymous No.11421801]

>>11407309
Oxford University Press has published books in which the author didn't verify their sources. I can show evidence if you want.

[Anonymous No.11421836]

>>11421801
The amount of footnotes in an Oxford Classics Book is tremendous. It’s an entirely different beast than reading anything else. The experience involves constantly checking the back and understanding so much more than you would have otherwise.

I shudder to think how I could have comprehended Reflections on the Revolution one France without those footnotes.

[Anonymous No.11421865]

>>11421836
I don't even mean their Classics. See, for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igrsfx0sLpI&t=45s

[Anonymous No.11421888]

>>11409245
This is actually me

[Anonymous No.11422062]

>>11413712
Why didn't you film this lmao

[Anonymous No.11422135]

>>11415371
Thanks

[Anonymous No.11423839]

>>11422135
yer welcome

[Anonymous No.11424014]

>>11418999
Handstand Satan has spoken

[Anonymous No.11424933]

>>11424014
Clever

[Anonymous No.11424964]

>>11407289
What is the source for that?

[Anonymous No.11424965]

>>11418999
Reminds me of the slaves at the Roman triumphs who would walk by the chariots of the general and whisper
>you are mortal, you are mortal...

[Anonymous No.11425000]

>>11424965
That´s pretty damn poetic.

[Anonymous No.11425057]

>>11413712
>Two hard leftists argue about a micro issue
>Diversity of opinion

[Anonymous No.11425114]

>>11425057
>gender studies professors
>hard leftists

[Anonymous No.11425158]

>>11425114
>Implying there are even centerists, let alone right wingers, in gender studies.
>Implying the subject itself wasn't funded and perpetuated by neo-marxists.

[Anonymous No.11425232]

>>11407309
>>11409000
what does this have to do with the original point though?

[Anonymous No.11425367]

>>11425232
The post both anons were responding to was:
>The vast majority of people appealing to sources and external authorities don't actually verify them. It's a bluff meme for psueds.
Both responses argued against this, and claimed that verifiable sources are important (including for reasons other than "bluffing" for persuasion).

>>11425158
Liberal/bourgeois/conservative feminisms all exist. Even Christina Hoff Sommers, a straight-up reactionary, has her own brand™ of feminism. The reason these arguments break out so often is because "women are people" is the only thing all feminists agree on. Everything else can go any number of ways.

[Anonymous No.11425469]

>>11407309
Nobody checks shit in humanities. I know because I've bluffed sources countless times and so has everyone I've asked

[Anonymous No.11425484]

>>11425367
>/conservative feminisms
It's a basic contradiction in terms. With actual right wing beliefs you just have a series of hierarchies. King-Nobles-Commoners-Father-Wife-Children

that sort of thing. 'feminism' doesnt make any sense at all from a right wing perspective it basically just means 'chaos and disorder in the family'

[Anonymous No.11425488]

>>11425367
>Hoff Summers is a reactionary
Guess I must be a fucking sith then

[Anonymous No.11425502]

ITT /lit/ reveals itself to be somehow more retarded than /pol/, never mix frogs with pseuds

[Anonymous No.11425711]

>>11418999
*SNAP*

[Anonymous No.11425780]

>>11425484
I agree, it’s a contradiction in terms, but there are both “conservative” feminists and conservative “feminists.”

I don’t remember her name, but there was a famous women’s activist who said something to the effect of “The washing machine will set us free,” and argued that submitting to a patriarch could actually be liberating once housework became largely automated. That’s a kind of conservative feminism.

>>11425488
She’s pining for a mythologized past. That’s the definition of reactionary. Her mythologized past includes certain historical feminists, but not others. It’s pretty obvious revisionism.

[Anonymous No.11425850]

>>11413712
Performance? Like trans can suck sick too so they count? I really don't get this argument because a trans can't really reproduce so their performance seems shot to me. But even guys can suck dick if not better so women have failed performance wise for hundreds of thousands of years

[Anonymous No.11425897]

>>11425367
>"women are people" is the only thing all feminists agree on
Very epic meme.

[Anonymous No.11425924]

>>11425780
Thats a terrible definition, and its a habit of pseuds to declare their terrible definitions...definitive. But I'm just another pseud, so nevermind, carry on, have your fun

[Anonymous No.11426210]

>>11425367
no they basically just said it is necessary to get through school, but that's obviously not the same thing