Skip to main content

View Diary: Plagiarizing SquirrelTerror (172 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  nothing personal, but this phrase has no place (12+ / 0-)

    in rational discourse:

    extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence.
     Courts of law decide matters of life and death based upon the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Requiring "extraordinary evidence" goes beyond a reasonable doubt.  It serves basically as an excuse to reject proper evidence.
    •  I'll remember that. (3+ / 0-)

      I see that phrase all the time in comments on this website. Next time I see it I'll link here.

      Some would say that I'm off my gourd. I would say that I am a gourd.

      by Hubbard Squash on Sat May 11, 2013 at 11:10:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think you understand the (4+ / 0-)

      meaning of that phrase--it is certainly inappropriate as used above, there's nothing "extraordinary" about plagiarism. Plagiarism certainly exists, aside from the question of what one thinks of the case in question. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" refers to stuff like people who claim to have flown on a flying saucer or proved the existence of God, things that are truly extraordinary.

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:02:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand that perfectly well (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yasuragi

        for further discussion see my diary on the subject here: http://www.dailykos.com/...

        •  No, your diary involves standard of proof (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Catte Nappe, Miss Blue, Meteor Blades

          for evidence of a "crime"--what I'm saying is that the expression has nothing to do with legal standards of proof/evidence, it referrers to scientific standards of evidence. It means that if you claim to have proof of something that violates known laws of nature then that better damn well be some "extraordinary" proof. People using this expression to deny evidence of something like a particular person's plagiarism are using it wrong, and your essay proclaiming that the expression has no value whatsoever is also wrong...you would be correct if you said it had no place in discussing legal standards of proof for crimes that are, essentially, "ordinary."

          I think the people who are (mis) using this expression are really saying that they refuse to believe a diarist whom they've never heard of before making a charge against a longstanding member of the community...which is another matter altogether. There's nothing "extraordinary" going on, just people who are inclined to trust someone they "know" (though of course this case points out how much we don't know about  each other) rather than a stranger, even if that stranger has a stronger case...actually this is quite common human behavior, and explains a lot about how long-serving corrupt politicians are able to get away with so much crap.

          "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

          by Alice in Florida on Sun May 12, 2013 at 09:06:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            indubitably, Onomastic
            I think the people who are (mis) using this expression are really saying that they refuse to believe a diarist whom they've never heard of before making a charge against a longstanding member of the community...
            I've often (mis)used it in simply pointing out that a diary (usually one heavily laden with possible CT) hasn't provided sufficient links.

            I think it may actually have caught on here after Markos or MB used it -- but my memory's not reliable enough to state that without reservation.  Yes, it's misused; yes, it's become common parlance.

            "Throwing a knuckleball for a strike is like throwing a butterfly with hiccups across the street into your neighbor's mailbox." -- Willie Stargell

            by Yasuragi on Sun May 12, 2013 at 09:28:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  nope (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Smoh

            It also has no place as a standard of proof in scientific matters. If someone is making a claim contrary to accepted theory then s/he is obligated to produce evidence in favor of that claim that results in at least a preponderance of the evidence in favor, when also weighing existing evidence in the balance.

            "Extraordinary", in practice, means evidence someone doesn't like can be disregarded without due consideration.  

            Want to discuss a case in point? See here: http://www.dailykos.com/...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site