[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 84 KB, 837x960, f04.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23070218 No.23070218 [Reply] [Original]

Have you ever consulted a cited source before? In practicality, if no one validates them, couldn't they all just be "dude trust me"?

>> No.23070618

>>23070218
i do this all the time at work. "see my report from 2018", report says nothing remotely related to whatever i'm talking about. never been called out.

>> No.23070626

>>23070218
The second footnote is right, unironically. If it’s about philosophy and the author thought of something and decided to write it, what the hell should he write as source lol?

>> No.23070633

I only do this when I disagree with what is being said, usually political topics or if I'm having a debate with someone
I remember some guy was posting some statistics for world war 2 and I asked him for a source, after a bit of arguing he relented
I managed to find the source (which was not easy to find) and the statistics had the same categories, some of the statistics were the same but others were changed
I asked him about it and he got angry, then I got angry and he told me to fuck off and that he synthesised multiple sources
It was very bizarre

>> No.23070645
File: 2.88 MB, 960x540, 1682817643202256.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23070645

>>23070218
plagiarism is based

>> No.23070649

>>23070633
Also it's often the case that you will realise that the only real source for a claim is found in a book which is not available on the internet and which is written in a language you do not speak
That is the most frustrating thing, because it seems like bullshit but you cannot check it
This happens on wikipedia

>> No.23070650

>>23070633
arguments are about Truth not facts. you establish consensus by charisma. rhetoric was never meant to be mixed with data.

>> No.23070654

>>23070650
I lose my temper easily, become so angry sometimes that I cannot think clearly and often end up throwing personal attacks because I am so furious
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyyyh8_Afyw

>> No.23070656

>>23070218
I’m writing a paper rn and gotta be honest, I didn’t read some of the sources I quote and I’m only 75% sure it’s not bullshit. I’ll proofread the shit when I’m finished if I have more time

>> No.23070659

>>23070654
same i have been awake in bed for 3 hours because someone disagreed with me at work

>> No.23070665

I get butthurt when I’m an expert of the topic and I hear someone talking bullshit about it, and when I call them out they answer with even more bullshit
I know I can disprove it but it’ll take me a lot of time I can spend somewhere else, and I’m on that stage where I have to decide whether I should lose my time and disprove his bullshit or just say to myself ah fuck that fucking retard and go my own way >>23070659

>> No.23070667

>>23070626
Exactly. Secondary interpretations are no more valid, and probably less valid, than your own.

>> No.23070671

>>23070645
That vid is hilarious >>23070649

>> No.23070684
File: 2.93 MB, 960x540, 1683724206555262.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23070684

>>23070671
:)

>> No.23070685
File: 1.75 MB, 1080x1045, Dreams.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23070685

>>23070218
If it's worth the trouble it ought to have an except in the text or in foot/end notes; it's on the author to synthesize it to the current purpose. Treat them as suggested reading material otherwise.

>> No.23070689

>>23070218
Yes, but somewhat rarely. Usually I just check if the publication is validated by a specific scientific review authority in Northern Europe. Often I look at the abstract and results. For some medical papers I've spend some time to see who funded the study.

>> No.23070692

>>23070684
I wish they were domesticated so bad.

>> No.23070694

>>23070692
Im planning on killin one (black tho) in a few months in Idaho. I am a bit conflicted about it, but alas, I was invited, and it is an undeniable literary experience.

>> No.23070710

>>23070694
Leave the bear alone, Chud

>> No.23070723

I did it a few times while researching for a paper (because I felt like the source would have more info I wanted to know) but I would never give a fuck about sources on social media posts

>> No.23070728

>>23070710
It is the natural order, Anon.

>> No.23070730
File: 29 KB, 440x698, aryan superstar.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23070730

>>23070218
Usually when I'm sceptical on wikipedia I'll do it and it turns out the vast majority of their sources don't actually source anything themselves so it's a race to the bottom on how hard you can circlejerk without citing a primary source.

>> No.23070803

>>23070218
There's a taller, funnier version of this image with 5 panels. Anyone have it?

>> No.23070806

>>23070650
>consensus by charisma
good line, going to steal it the next time someone notices i'm making shit up

>> No.23070813
File: 29 KB, 720x720, 1557844159300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23070813

>>23070618
>report says nothing remotely related to whatever i'm talking about