28-10-2003 03:11									#1
	Does anyone else LOATHE using secondary sources in papers? Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

YES I know this will never change, but it will NEVER stop annoying me either.

Most people I know will admit, whether or not they think i'm an *******, I know how to back up an argument quite well. Logic and reason are my best friends, I dont NEED anyone else. I am NEVER wrong in an argument(well almost never) unless the information I was given is wrong.


If it is a topic that isnt technical, history, english etc -whenever I am told I must use secondary sources I cringe inside.


Why should I use someone ELSES argument or opinion to back up my own?

When you do that, you no longer base your argument on fact, you base the strength of your argument on their credibility, screw their credibility. Any argument should be based on logic and reason, not who the author is. I feel like my argument is always weaker when I am forced to use someone elses words.

Regarldess of who the author is, logic and reason-when well applied are an ultimate, unbreakable foundation.

Resorting to using someone elses argument means you dont know how to make one, or cannot make one of your own. It is an admission of weakness.

It also smacks somewhat of elitism which bothers me. Just because this person had a book published, dosent mean that they are any more right then me, or wrong them me, it just means they had a book published. Many of the sources I've been forced to use over the years, if their authors were in the same room I would debate them into the ground. Saying that the fact someone has been published gives them creadance is rediculous, all it means is that they had acess to the means of publishing, if someone has their opinion in a book it makes it no more or less valid then someone who has posted something on an online message board, a website or T.V..

THAT is why arguments should be based on facts not people-because when the people are removed all that remains is the harsh cold reality of reason, and pure reason will always beat out the fake reason of psuedo-wanna be intellectuals who write excriment in books......


*pants*


Thoughts?

	28-10-2003 03:17									#2
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: When you do that, you no longer base your argument on fact, you base the strength of your argument on their credibility, screw their credibility. Any argument should be based on logic and reason, not who the author is. I feel like my argument is always weaker when I am forced to use someone elses words.

Because if you rely exclusively on primary sources, you have to reargue everything. It would be a pointless waste of your and your professor's time. Scholars do monographs on primary sources so that you don't have to too much. Capiche?

	28-10-2003 03:18									#3
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Your very opinionated Vesayen

True arguments cannot occur over FACTS. If there is an argument over FACTS it is because someone is misinformed or has conflicting facts, thus suggestion one of the facts is not a FACT at all.

True arguments are over opinions. No right or wrong realy exists except in the concept of majority rules. Thus, in this case, having secondary sources from credible, followed, people is very important. Even if you are a very credible, followed person yourself.

Bush: Saddam has WoMD
Chirac: Naw-uh
Blair: Yes they do.
Schrodier: Nope

Thus, the problem.

It isn't about credibility or elitism it's about collaboration. Even a scientist who designs a new experiment needs to show that it is reproducable and not just a fluke or a fleeting thought. "Trust me" just doesn't cut it when you are going to blow a million dollars to create the system in which to run this experiment...

Collaboration and Conformation

not

Credibility or Popularity

	28-10-2003 03:24									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

It saves time, and you can "pick" only the "juicy"/useful bits of a person's argument, ignoring/criticizing the rest according to your needs.

	28-10-2003 03:31									#5
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

"Your very opinionated Vesayen"

I know-but I'm always right-however with this incredibly egotistical attitude I always admit without hesitation when I am infact wrong, so it counters out.



"True arguments cannot occur over FACTS. If there is an argument over FACTS it is because someone is misinformed or has conflicting facts, thus suggestion one of the facts is not a FACT at all."

You argue why the other person's ideas are not facts, but misinformation opinions etc, or if you are trying to proove something, take facts and use logic to explain why those facts can only support your idea, and no other idea.




"It isn't about credibility or elitism it's about collaboration. Even a scientist who designs a new experiment needs to show that it is reproducable and not just a fluke or a fleeting thought. "Trust me" just doesn't cut it when you are going to blow a million dollars to create the system in which to run this experiment..."

Science, math, engineering etc-"technical" courses of course need secondary sources, however for liberal arts classes-its all opinion backed up by logic. The opinion with the superior logic becomes fact, and wins.

quote: Originally posted by DanS Because if you rely exclusively on primary sources, you have to reargue everything. It would be a pointless waste of your and your professor's time. Scholars do monographs on primary sources so that you don't have to too much. Capiche?

You have to reargue everything anyway, instead of explaining why you think the sky is blue, you explain why Trotsky thinks the sky is blue. Screw why Trotsky thinks the sky is blue, I'm not going to plagerize my paper with his ideas(or I wish I didnt have to).

I dont like being forced to use other peoples ideas, whether I agree with them or not. I see papers as an assignment to proove why *I* am right, not someone else.

quote: Originally posted by JCG It saves time, and you can "pick" only the "juicy"/useful bits of a person's argument, ignoring/criticizing the rest according to your needs.

Thats immoral, which is another reason I hate using secondary sources, because ultimatly you have to pick and choose what the person said. Then it isnt about logic and reason, its about hoping the person reading your paper dosent know the secondary source well enough to know your putting words into the authors mouth out of context.

	28-10-2003 03:35									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I dont like being forced to use other peoples ideas, whether I agree with them or not. I see papers as an assignment to proove why *I* am right, not someone else.

Then you're out to join a debating society, not to contribute to the body of collective knowledge.

	28-10-2003 03:47									#7
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen Thats immoral, which is another reason I hate using secondary sources, because ultimatly you have to pick and choose what the person said. Then it isnt about logic and reason, its about hoping the person reading your paper dosent know the secondary source well enough to know your putting words into the authors mouth out of context.

Not really immoral, IMHO and experience, as long as the source is clearly mentioned/referenced/aluded to in some manner and you're not totally misrepresenting the author's opinion (just giving one possible and perfectly valid interpretation), you're allowed to do that in most college courses (for example), I believe.

You're just giving the person credit for his ideas, and at the same time, using what you can. Of course, you should try to respect the context, but if you somehow fail to do so, it's not a sin.

Plenty of people have done that before.

	28-10-2003 06:18									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I pretty much agree with Vesayen. Writing a book doesn't make you smart. Look what Galileo was up against.

	28-10-2003 06:50									#9
	Increase Your PM Length

I prefer using primary sources in papers, becuase i think its more credible than using secondary sources(as long as you are honest with your sources). I used secondary sources more to see if there are counterpoints to my argument.

	28-10-2003 06:50									#10
	Put an end to popups!

Secondary sources are there because in many cases the author is smarter than you. Secondary sources are indespensible in putting primary documents in their proper social, historical and personal context. They also provide another view point that you may have not considered. It saves you from having to research it all yourself.

Last week I wrote a paper in Persian Sufi Poetry and the innovations of Jalal al-Rumi. I'm not Persian. I don't speak Persian. Up until two weeks ago I'd never read mystical Sufi lyrics. If I didn't have a secondary analysis of the ghazal lyrical form or an analysis of his innovations and style, my entire thesis would've been riddled with enough holes to drive a Semi through. It's in cases like this that secondary sources are important.

	28-10-2003 07:53									#11
	Re: Does anyone else LOATHE using secondary sources in papers? Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen I am NEVER wrong in an argument.

	28-10-2003 07:57									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Utilizing secondary sources also gives you the opportunity to work on theses that concern historiographical developments over a period of time.

	28-10-2003 08:02									#13
	Full PM-box? Change here!

My view is close to yours..
But following your idea to the extreme, you could only argue from things you know from experience.
How could you argue about World War I, I wasnt there and neither were you.
And, behold, those that were disagree (or disagreed) about certaint "facts" about it. Except from some recent discoveries , archeological or otherwise, nothing but quoting can be a very decisive argument
I use history as a strong example, but the same goes for many other fields, you have to quote research done on the field by some other person, or trust some other's opinion on his visit to Japan.
I agree with you that it is better if you opinion as a whole is sort of a melting pot of you idea on all this, but you can hardly argue that you should get all your basic info yourself, and all this basic info is always somewhat biaised, an opinion.

	28-10-2003 09:14									#14
	Got spare money?

Secondary sources also show the reader that you've taken the time to pore over the Literature, so that they can rest assured that you know what the hell you're talking about and that you're not wasting their time.

	28-10-2003 09:33									#15
	Full PM-box? Change here!

On most topics, doing a college paper using purely primary sources is utterly impossible becuase:
1. You have no access to said sources.
2. You lack the skills to intepret said sources.
3. You lack the time to annalyze the sources.

	28-10-2003 10:01									#16
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

If it is any indication, I had to do a 23 pages paper recently. It was an illustration of the theory from sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Among the books I used, there was a massive tome from Bourdieu himself (ca. 700 pages written in a horrible style), and a much shorter book summing up Bourdieu's system, written by a German professor.

It was an utter pain in the ass to read the original source. It wasted my time terribly, and it didn't bring me much more than what I could find in the summary.

So Vesayen, unless you're in for a real research work, or unless the subject really captivates you, it is not often the best idea to take direct sources.


Besides, you shouldn't underestimate people who have got printed. Sure, some authors simply have a book diarrhea because it's the only way for them to exist. Sur some authors constantly publish the same loonie idea with other words. But many authors have put months if not years of efforts behind their books. They have looked for facts in the most obscure archives, and they have elaborated their point. They're not always right (far from it), but don't imagine it's that easy to "debate them on the ground" when what you had was a 2-hours long interest on the issue.

	28-10-2003 10:56									#17
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Aside from what GePap, JohnT, DanS and others have said here, there's also the fact that you could never, in a paper, do the depth of work that a good scholar has done in a book. You're writing a paper in a few weeks -- a year at most, if it's a bachelor's thesis. Scholars have taken years to write the "secondary sources" you're deriding. So stop kidding yourself: you can't duplicate their efforts on your own, even if you had the knowledge and training in the field. You can refer to those works, and thus bring into your paper by proxy an extraordinary depth of learning; or you could go it alone and make an incomplete, more shallow argument. That seems like an obvious choice.