Does anyone else LOATHE using secondary sources in papers?

[Vesayen]

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?

[DanS]

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?

[Japher]

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

[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.

[Vesayen]

"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.

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.

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.

[DanS]

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.

[JCG]

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.

[Lincoln]

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

[CivPatriot]

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.

[Timexwatch]

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.

[General Ludd]

Re: Does anyone else LOATHE using secondary sources in papers?

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

[MrFun]

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

[Guest]

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.

[JohnT]

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.

[GePap]

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.