Citation vs Metrology
Couple days ago I snarked in the combox of an annoying article by Hillary-Worshipping Deepstate Agent Dreher. The article was about meeting potential mates at church, which was formerly possible if not common and now seems to be rare.

The first few comments were the predictable crap: "I'm so wonderful that I didn't need the assistance of church." Yeah, okay, we know you're Superman, but you shouldn't be disparaging the possibility. Others aren't Superman, and might need the help of civilization.

Most of the commenters got DEEPLY involved in an argument about the exact attribution of a chart or graph in the article that Deepstate Agent Dreher was sourcing.

That's where I snarked.

Citation Syndrome is a monstrous problem on the Web. It has always existed in academic circles, but the Web has turned it into a destructive force.

Why is it a problem? Because the instantaneous hammerblow of "CITE YOUR EVIDENCE" is explicitly intended to destroy personal observation.

I remember the first time I received the hammerblow. It was in 1987 in a Compuserve forum that later turned into Townhall.com. Long before the "real Web". There was a discussion of twins, and I mentioned the WELL-KNOWN FACT that identical twins often develop contrasting personalities to shore up a sense of personal identity. IMMEDIATELY one of the NYC Tribal dickheads who dominated the forum SLAMMED me with CITE YOUR EVIDENCE, TROLL! I calmly responded that it was a personal observation, and the HAMMERING got harder from all sides.

Needless to say, these ERASURES of personal variability ALWAYS come from passionate advocates of TOLERANCE and DIE-VERSITY.

= = = = =

How does this differ from Metrology? Simple.

Metrology, whether in science or religious visions, means checking your own observations against REALITY, as far as you can. Know the baseline, try to exclude NOISE, make sure your measurements or visions are consistent. Does this AC voltage look like 60 cycles? If so, it's noise. Does this vision look like something seen on TV? If so, it's noise.

Citations are noise because citations are always skewed to serve somebody's purpose. In "science" they're skewed by the orthodoxy-enforcing mechanism of peer review. In language and etymology they're skewed by the narrow viewpoint and prejudices of the first writer to publish the word or phrase. (Normally the word or phrase had been around for a long time before it appeared in print.) In "journalism" everything is purely and intentionally evil.

Labels: Blinded by Stats, Carver, Metrology

  ¶ 9:47 AM