I think... it was John Lennon that said there was no such thing as an original idea, or something along those lines

What are peoples thoughts on citing their sources in the context of debating truth and presenting experimental ideas without profit being the ultimate goal? It seems impossible to have a productive conversation while simultaneously pointing to the source of every original idea — MonfortS26

If you quote someone then a source must be given. If you're stating your own ideas no source is needed.

It seems impossible to have a productive conversation while simultaneously pointing to the source of every original idea — MonfortS26

Authority is one of the essential criteria for a sound philosophy. If the speaker himself has no authority (such as every member of TPF), then it is a very good idea to cite one who does. It is perfectly fine to limit yourself to invoking the authority of historically famous philosophers in order to reinforce your ideas and give yourself philosophical credibility.

Citing to sources is generally helpful. If you're making empirical claims (for example if you're arguing about gun violence, Covid deaths, global temperature changes, etc.), it makes sense to provide support so that people will believe your information. If you're making philosophical claims that have been advanced by others, it makes sense to reference them so that the conversation can move more quickly to the real issues of debate.

If you're plagiarizing, actually quoting others without reference, then I think you'll lose much credibility once discovered. Unlike in the real world where there might be some financial or professional gain from plagiarizing, it'd just be really weird to that here.

Waste of time unless you make the effort to present sources that counter your argument. It is not exactly hard to find some source that backs up your claim but it makes for a more honest approach to show you have tried to counter your own position/s and questions them to some degree.

I do not think there is anywhere near enough of this here.

It seems impossible to have a productive conversation while simultaneously pointing to the source of every original idea — MonfortS26

I fully agree! :up:

I have brought up this issue a lot of times. It seems that these people are not able to formulate their own position or they think it is not enough to make an impact as citing the position of a known philosopher or other authority. On the other hand, I rarely see quoting definitions of concepts from any standard source, dictionary or encyclopedia. These two combined, show lack of real understanding of philosophical issues.

it was John Lennon that said there was no such thing as an original idea, or something along those lines — MonfortS26

But then, why do yourself bring up an idea from someone else? :chin:

If you quote someone then a source must be given — Jackson

I don't think that this is the point here. When you cite someone, you normally also include the source.
I think that the point is why does one have to cite others, in general. Well, may be not, But this makes more sense.

Authority is one of the essential criteria for a sound philosophy. — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't find it essential at all. In fact, rather ineffective. One may bring up an authority for debating purposes, but it is not OK to do that as a substitute of one's own position, ideas, etc. Citing someone is a bad if not a substitute for arguments. It shows that the person does not really undestand the issue at hand or he is not able to describe/explain and judge it.
Imagine that everyone in here caite others as a response to every idea and subject. This would be an absence of philosophical talk!

If the speaker himself has no authority (such as every member of TPF), then it is a very good idea to cite one who does — Merkwurdichliebe

"Essential", became now "a good idea" ...
And, since when TPF members are authotities??

Sorry, not getting your point.

You said "If you quote someone then a source must be given", didn't you? Well, I said this is not the point of the topic. What part of it you don't get?

Goodbye.

One may bring up an authority for debating purposes, but it is not OK to do that as a substitute of one's own position, ideas, etc. — Alkis Piskas

Where did I write "substitute"?

"Essential", became now "a good idea" ... — Alkis Piskas

Did it? You are obviously confused. Let me dumb it down for you. If you wish to have a sound philosophy, it is a good idea to include what is essential to one.

And, since when TPF members are authotities?? — Alkis Piskas

Since never.

How disappointing! Not a single source has been cited, leaving the reader with unsubstantiated opinions on all sides. It's almost as if there are no hard and fast rules, and while some people like to be referred here and there to related material, others want it all laid in front of them ,and some take it as it comes, or leave it where it lies...

The moving finger wags, and having wagged, moves on

The Autobiography of God: Daniel 5:5 (Omar Khayyam edition)

The moving finger wags, and having wagged, moves on

:roll:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

"The Rubaiyat" by Omar Khayyam (Fitzgerald translation I think)

Where did I write "substitute"? — Merkwurdichliebe

Nowhere. It was I who used this word, as a response to your "Authority is one of the essential criteria for a sound philosophy",
Well, this looks like a (known) method of avoiding to talk about the essence of what the other person says.

Bye!

Are you rolling your eyes or wagging your finger at me? I may have misquoted and multiplied the misattributions, but it's the only citation in the thread. Be thankful for small mercies.

The point of citing one's sources is primarily to mitigate/prevent the despicable act of plagiarism which is basically theft (of other people's ideas) [the latest Tom Cruise hollywood blockbuster Top Gun is a case in point].

My two denarii.

Well, this looks like a (known) method of avoiding to talk about the essence of what the other person says. — Alkis Piskas

What the hell are you talking about?

The point of citing one's sources is primarily to mitigate/prevent the despicable act of plagiarism — Agent Smith

Yes. If you quote someone, you have to cite the source. Not sure why this is such a troubling idea for some.

Yes. If you quote someone, you have to cite the source. Not sure why this is such a troubling idea for some. — Jackson

Laziness, pressed for time, forgetfulness, and a host of other benign reasons. Ideas also tend to recirculate in the population - multiple discoveries (re the Newton-Leibniz calculus controversy).

Laziness, pressed for time, forgetfulness, and a host of other benign reasons. Ideas also tend to recirculate in the population - multiple discoveries (re the Newton-Leibniz calculus controversy). — Agent Smith

Not about common ideas. Pretty straightforward. If you quote someone, cite the source.

Not about common ideas. Pretty straightforward. If you quote someone, cite the source. — Jackson

10-4.

Not about common ideas. Pretty straightforward. If you quote someone, cite the source — Jackson

:up:

↪jgill
Are you rolling your eyes or wagging your finger at me? — unenlightened

I love the poem, but beyond that is the fact that Khayyam is an academic ancestor of mine, having written about mathematical continued fractions - a topic I've researched.

I think... it was John Lennon that said there was no such thing as an original idea, or something along those lines — MonfortS26

Yes, but it was not original. Machiavelli said that, too, and so did Omniprotharos. Before them, Kostas Soumapoupoupulus, and before that, Skippy, the Nero said that. And before that, Moses said that, and before that, Kain said that.

And before that, Moses said that, and before that, Kain said that. — god must be atheist

My advisor said that regarding mathematics a half century ago. Didn't buy it.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

:cool: