About the literature Aug 8, 2013 8:36:58 GMT -9
Post by grrraaahhh on Aug 8, 2013 8:36:58 GMT -9
Transparency is required on all material related posts. No ambiguous data posts. Please try to provide or be prepared to properly cite any data material used. Direct material quotes are preferred to paraphrasing. Fan boy selective or manipulation of data posts is not welcomed.
As earlier explained, I prefer the opinions of qualified experts and the scientific literature (peer reviewed – published literature, technical field literature, etc.) as the primary source for information and data. As often as possible I am quoting from the scientific literature including full citation. I feel this approach is holistic. Among the scientific literature there are many positions to examine. My goal is to bring the myriad of scientific positions to the attention of the online community. IMO, the opinions of online bloggers including myself is to be honest: irrelevant. In my experience as it relates to online animal discussion (especially bears) there is too often misinformation. The easiest way to counter this problem including the issue of never ending unqualified online opinion and biases is the direct quoting of the scientific literature. It is for the online community to interpret the data provided. I want to be clear with the forum readership. I do appreciate outside opinions and discussion; however, IMO, I think it is important that scientific/expert opinion carry the day (so to speak) in any discussion.
Next: What qualifies as credible data?