Now that I have been gone "forever" . . . . . .

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spiffor
It means: "I haven't originally invented the idea, and here are the credits" which is something important in the academia.

That's what footnotes are for, saying "I agree" or "I disagree" isn't proper referencing.

Besides it meand "While I can oppose Bob on other issues, in this particular case, I agree with his argumentation I linked to - just so that you can better understand how Bob's argument fits into mine".

Completely useless indeed

A simple "I agree with Bob" or "I disagree with Bob" doesn't add anything of substance, especially if it's tangential to the actual topic.

If your paper consists of saying if you agree or disagree with what other people's opinions are, where is the original work?

Or are you using what someone else's opinion is to bolster yours?

Either way, it seems kinda pointless to use someone else's opinion as a basis for your own in a serious academic paper.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Asher
Either way, it seems kinda pointless to use someone else's opinion as a basis for your own in a serious academic paper.

I didn't know you were so keen of reinventing the wheel...

If Bob spent years developing a serious argumentation, that can be of use in your work (and your work doesn't have the same goals as his), why could you not use Bob's arguments? How can you help advancement if you have to redo the work that has already been done?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I didn't know you were so keen of reinventing the wheel...

If Bob spent years developing a serious argumentation, that can be of use in your work (and your work doesn't have the same goals as his), why could you not use Bob's arguments? How can you help advancement if you have to redo the work that has already been done?

You can use Bob's arguments, just don't base your arguments on his with blunt "I agree here" and "I disagree here" footnotes.

With that kind of academic laziness, we'd still be assuming the world was flat today.

[Japher]

If you are furthuring the argument of someone, why would you need to even indicate that you agree with that person?

[Odin]

Aggie's paper looks like Gibberish with a bit of Greek.

[Spiffor]

Mine is much more clear

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by MrFun



I wuv you.

aw gosh

[Agathon]

You can use Bob's arguments, just don't base your arguments on his with blunt "I agree here" and "I disagree here" footnotes.

Unless Bob has a well-known idea, and you wish to make reference to it so that someone doesn't say "What about Bob? Didn't he say that?" or "Bob talked about that and disagreed, why hasn't Agathon noted that and pointed out why he disagrees with Bob?"

Other than that, your comments are worthless.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Japher
If you are furthuring the argument of someone, why would you need to even indicate that you agree with that person?

Because, if you don't you can be convicted of plagiarism.

[Agathon]

Hey, I've seen worse in Academic papers. I've seen history papers in which only one line on a page was part of the paper, and the rest of the page was a footnote.

That page is a particularly egregious example of footnoting. There are a lot of footnotes overall because I don't agree with the practice of referencing in the main body like such (Phd, 80D).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher

You can use Bob's arguments, just don't base your arguments on his with blunt "I agree here" and "I disagree here" footnotes.

With that kind of academic laziness, we'd still be assuming the world was flat today.

Ok -- I think I see your point.

You're concerned about the poor grammar skills used by some writers, and their failure to more intelligently articulate their argument in relation to another author's work, more so than the idea itself, in using another author's work.

[Japher]

Because, if you don't you can be convicted of plagiarism.

I am not saying don't credit the person, I am saying why can't you say that you agree within the body of the text?

[MrFun]

Japher, you can briefly mention the author's name, and briefly state the central point. But for other details, refer readers to the source using the footnote.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Japher
I am not saying don't credit the person, I am saying why can't you say that you agree within the body of the text?

That's mostly frowned upon. Any time you agree with someone else's work and it is tangential to the paper, you are supposed to include it in a footnote. Professors don't like that sort of the thing in the main body.

FWIW, I find nothing wrong with Agathon's use of footnotes. It's basically necessary because of concerns of plagarism.

[Agathon]

I am not saying don't credit the person, I am saying why can't you say that you agree within the body of the text?

Because, as someone else said, the idea is tangential to the main thesis. In the last piece I am talking about a piece of text that people have been writing about for 2500 years. There are all sorts of different interpretations of it. I'm trying to locate my view within that matrix. That part of the thesis is where I deal with more general stuff that a lot of people write about. Later on I am dealing with stuff that depends on a particular interpretation of that, but is pretty much all down to me.

Besides... I'm already way over the word limit and I've had to put a lot of stuff in notes.

And in the case of the footnote that just says "I agree with Bob", Bob has featured rather prominently in the preceding 15 pages, so it won't look as weird to someone reading the whole thing.