Bullshit. There is nothing wrong with using personal experience for reference so long as it is properly cited.
It beats "This guy is wrong (source: random blog post that I didn't really read)", anyway.
Edit: To be clear, I don't love the Reddit snowclones, but there's nothing wrong with the sentiment behind "I'm a scholar in this field, and I think this guy is a hack."
>Bullshit. There is nothing wrong with using personal experience for reference so long as it is properly cited.
I agree with the sentiment, but "properly cited" suggests a bit more than a one line comment from a username with barely a handful of posts (generally pertaining to bitcoin and intermediate level networking certifications) on an anonymous website.
>It beats "This guy is wrong (source: random blog post that I didn't really read)", anyway.
I have to disagree. At least a random blog post presents the potential for useful information or a fully articulated opinion. What we here is 4 words and an unsubstantiated appeal to authority.
> I agree with the sentiment, but "properly cited" suggests a bit more than a one line comment from a username with barely a handful of posts (generally pertaining to bitcoin and intermediate level networking certifications) on an anonymous website.
Isn't the purpose of citing claims precisely so others can effectively verify or discount their validity?
Citation: a post from an anonymous Internet user who claims to have a graduate degree. Take it for what it is. What's wrong with that?
> I have to disagree. At least a random blog post presents the potential for useful information or a fully articulated opinion. What we here is 4 words and an unsubstantiated appeal to authority.
Conversely, it is far easier to engage in vigorous debate on HN than a random blog. I call it a wash.
No, I think the purpose of citing claims is to demonstrate that they have validity. People can disagree about what constitutes "validity" and the citation is often inappropriate. But you shouldn't intentionally cite a source that shows your claim has no support, you just shouldn't make the claim. (at least, that's my impression of hnetiquette)
Academic citation isn't an honor system. They're there so you can look them up. That said, your point is effectively what I was saying in that the statement "I have personal experience with this" taken in good faith is much more supportive than a link which does not actually support my point, yet the latter frequently passes without comment.
So misapplying the term source and saying that one has a degree gives one enough credibility as a scholar to turn a dismissive and colloquial statement into a worthwhile contribution to a discussion about AI?
The point of sourcing your statements is to give the listener enough context to judge for themselves what your credibility is. It's not a layperson's responsibility to shut up, only to avoid misrepresenting themselves as an expert. It's the listener's responsibility to judge the credibility of those they listen to.
(Besides, my read of the comment that started this was that it's quite tongue-in-cheek. He was basically saying "Don't trust this any more than any other comment you read on the Internet.")
In this case the term "source" is obviously a rhetoric device, and we can avoid a lot of pedantry by noting that the poster was totally transparent about his reasoning thus achieving the ends we want via means that aren't awful. PS having a degree by definition implies some credibility as a scholar.
