It's really counterproductive to mock me 1still_waters for stating that I am familiar with what constitutes a scholarly source and the bodies that produce them for the simple fact is that I do and am. This; however, does not extrapolate to me having warranted in this discussion that every single piece of information I share is scholarly. I never did that. No one does that.
That's something you've created in your own mind and are projecting at me as if I did that.
I stated that my level of familiarity with bodies that produce scholarly sources which are then cited was second nature because I've worked with them for a long time and sometimes forget to differentiate in my posts what is a scholarly source and what is not because I don't always remember that not everyone understands how to qualify them and properly interpret what I'm communicating.
Furthermore, while the difference between a scholarly source and someone's personal work and opinion matters; it doesn't mean that non-scholarly sources can't be true and never add value to a discussion. They often do and that's why they are shared so often. Interjecting someone's non-scholarly work and opinion (as I did with Dalrock's blog articles) opens up new areas to discuss. Specifically, I introduced three concepts from those blog articles (e.g. the aging female "strip-miner", how the longevity of courtship has changed and the effects it's now having on marriage statistics, and something of the legal transition from what can be called a traditional paternal family model to what can be called a maternal child support model we now observe).
It's wrong of you to misrepresent what I said in the way that you are. I never warranted every piece of information that I share as scholarly and it's not right of you to falsely assert that I did. Furthermore, it would be unreasonable for you to expect that anyone would warrant that in an informal discussion. Some things that are shared will be scholarly (these include primary sources and secondary sources that reference primary sources) and used as empirical support for arguments and some will be non-scholarly and used for a variety of purposes to broaden the discussion, offer another viewpoint, influence the reader, demonstrate someone's work that hasn't been peer-reviewed and so while unscholarly might be accurate and very important to the discussion, etc...
Some of the things I shared have been scholarly and some have not been scholarly. This is normal in informal discussions and can cause confusion with readers as has occurred with you and why I took the time to begin explaining to you how it works in post
#425. Let's review that post again:
"1Still_Waters, there are primary and secondary sources. If I share a Psychology Today article, that's a secondary source. Look deeper and you'll see that the article itself is citing primary sources. For example,
in that article I shared, the secondary source names the following primary sources in support of their piece:
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics
2. U.S. Bureau of the Census
3. a study by D. Cornell (et al.), in Behavioral Sciences and the Law
4. a report in Criminal Justice & Behavior
5. a study by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation
6. Center for Disease Control
7. study published in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology
8. a Congressional Research Service Report
What you've done is make the mistake of ignoring all of the primary scholarly sources used by secondary sources. Furthermore, you're not recognizing that national and even regional publications have editorial staffs that check every article for errors submitted to them for publication. This isn't to say that errors don't sometimes get through but these articles are checked by editors for accuracy who maintain a list of contracted reputable experts that they call to verify information with. Of course; this wouldn't apply to blogs, personal websites, etc...
You also omitted scholarly primary sources and studies that I linked directly to and pulled information directly from in your response such as Pew Research and universities."
All true my friend. If a high school student writes a competent article properly referencing primary sources to support their argument and submits it for publication to a national magazine that like it and opts for publication, it will be reviewed by editorial staff (and their panel of experts) for correctness and if it is found that the primary sources are fraudulent or materially misused in support of the author's argument then the editors will either reject the article entirely or if they believe it still has merit will send it back to be properly rewritten. Your obsession with attacking people instead of arguments is classic ad hominem and reveals that you don't know how publishing, research and statistics, etc... works.
I also sense an anti-intellectual bias at work in your replies. I mean no offense my friend, but this mess you wrote is as ridiculous as the language you chose to communicate it (e.g. unnecessary mocking). Drop the ad hominem (responding to arguments by attacking people rather than engaging the content of their arguments) and if you have an argument with respect to the topic; we'd all like to hear it.
P.S. Don't be offended if I stop bothering to reply to this entire 'I don't like the message so let's shoot the messenger' line past a certain point. Peace.
It's just that you've presented things as if the rigors of academia, research, and presentation of substantive data is so familiar it comes without trying. So we see that, and expect your sources to be from weighty, serious minded, purely high grade academic sources. But then a resource you present is clicked on, and we discover like in this instance. Link-->
http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-16.html#post1822111 Which links to this-->
https://www.nolanchart.com/article2...al-abuse-allegations-in-custody-disputes-html The source is written by Jake Morphonios, a man with a two year community college education, two years at some online university Link, a raging 911 Truther, and the author of a far out there conspiracy theory blog Link. I don't know if writers with two years of community college, two years at an online university, with a passion for 911 Truth, qualify as scholarly, or empirical sources of truth in academia. So when I saw someone with your credentials....ie.. Well I was surprised to see that type of source referenced. I was expecting something weightier. Then there was further surprise in this post from you.
http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-7.html#post1812645 You referenced these two sources. The Sexodus, Part 1: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society - Breitbart The Sexodus, Part 2: Dishonest Feminist Panics Leave Male Sexuality In Crisis - Breitbart The author? Milo Yiannopoulos, a college dropout who founded a tabloid. Milo Yiannopoulos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia So I noticed your familiarity with academia, scholarly work, etc., then contrasted that with your use of a 911 Truther with two years community college, two years online college, and thought you would use something with more academic heft. I'm sure this source wouldn't fly in academia. College dropout Milo and his tabloid probably wouldn't fly either.
I have no anti-intellectual bias.
