5 ms·

Citing Yahoo Answers as a source? Whoa.

by excitom 12y ago

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Well, citing a quote from an authority presented in a Yahoo Answer. Ok, I googled again for you. Here's an expert from Georgetown U quoted in a Google Answer: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=54617 http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=54617
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  The "authority" quoted in the Yahoo Answers thread is Jack Chick, who's rapidly anti-Catholic (see http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractByKeyword.asp?Subject=Catholicism http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractByKeyword.asp?Subject=Cath...), claims Dungeons and Dragons involves true demon worship, etc. - he's pretty much anti-anything that isn't hard-core fundamentalist Christianity. The Vatican is certainly wealthy, but Yahoo Answers should never be used as a "see? evidence!" item.
Karunamon 12y ago
Attacking the source? Weak.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  The source cites Jack Chick as the evidence. He's a lunatic, not just on Catholicism. http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractByKeyword.asp?Subject=Catholicism http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractByKeyword.asp?Subject=Cath...
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Which means grains of salt and skepticism, not outright discarding. Truth stands on its own regardless of the speaker. Otherwise it's ad hominem. This is not a scientific journal. There is no such thing as an "invalid source", there are only things that are true and things that are not, plain and simple. The lengths people will go to in order to avoid validating a piece of data is truly staggering.. And look? Turns out, he was right.
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      A source like Chick is invalid, plain and simple. It's like asking Hitler about Jews - some of what he says might be accurate, but you're not going to cite him ever on it. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833509,00.html http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833509,... says the Vatican's wealth is $10-15 billion. I suspect their total net worth is hard to calculate given that much of what they have is priceless - it'd be hard to put a price tag on St. Peter's Basilica.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        There, was that so hard? Googling 'Vatican net worth' and choosing any of several substantially-agreeing links. Sorry I picked the wrong one, but the conclusion is the same: the Vatican is a multi-billion dollar operation.
        lotharbot 12y ago
        While I agree with the conclusion, I disagree with the method: googling for something and choosing from one of several "agreeing" links doesn't actually protect you from being wrong, if most of those links got their wrong data from the same original source.
    - logfromblammo 12y ago
      Appeal to authority plus ad hominem against said authority leaves us back where we started, which was lack of verifiable evidence to support the assertion. In lieu of accounting statements from the worldwide Catholic Church and its executive offices in the Vatican, we must necessarily make reasonable implications from the information that is available. The Catholic Church has hundreds of billions of dollars in expenditures. The Vatican has control over some portion of church revenues. It also has a publicly verifiable collection of religion-inspired artwork on display. It owns territory near a major European capital as independently sovereign territory, which is also a major tourist destination. Its subordinate entities in foreign jurisdictions have been the beneficiaries of legacies, escheat, and estate bequests for literally centuries, while largely benefiting from favorable treatment from the secular authority in majority Christian territory. While the Vatican itself may not have direct and absolute ownership over the assets of the Church, it does have significant control over them. You don't have to be a cardinal to know that the Vatican archivists probably don't absolutely need to solicit direct donations for historical preservation. But the Church is also a massive worldwide bureaucracy. The archivists may, in fact, find it far easier to fund their work via direct donations than by competing with all the other things the Church tries to do. Having theoretical access to a budget does not always mean you can actually spend the cash in a timely or expedient fashion. Ethically speaking, I'm confident the archivists mean well, but they will essentially be proving that the Vatican can get additional revenue by holding the deteriorating old documents in its collection for ransom. We have as much reason to donate to them for this as we do to donate money to ExxonMobil to check that their pipelines running through wilderness areas are not leaking oil into them. If they can't maintain their own property, maybe they should be selling it to someone who can. There are plenty of museums and universities that would love to help in that way.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    To return to the topic: how big do you think the Vatican is? Net worth, round to billions.

Citing Yahoo Answers as a source? Whoa.

by excitom 12y ago

Citing Yahoo Answers as a source? Whoa.

Well, citing a quote from an authority presented in a Yahoo Answer. Ok, I googled again for you. Here's an expert from Georgetown U quoted in a Google Answer: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=54617 http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=54617

ceejayoz 12y ago
The "authority" quoted in the Yahoo Answers thread is Jack Chick, who's rapidly anti-Catholic (see http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractByKeyword.asp?Subject=Catholicism http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractByKeyword.asp?Subject=Cath...), claims Dungeons and Dragons involves true demon worship, etc. - he's pretty much anti-anything that isn't hard-core fundamentalist Christianity. The Vatican is certainly wealthy, but Yahoo Answers should never be used as a "see? evidence!" item.

Karunamon 12y ago

Attacking the source? Weak.

ceejayoz 12y ago
The source cites Jack Chick as the evidence. He's a lunatic, not just on Catholicism. http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractByKeyword.asp?Subject=Catholicism http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractByKeyword.asp?Subject=Cath...
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Which means grains of salt and skepticism, not outright discarding. Truth stands on its own regardless of the speaker. Otherwise it's ad hominem. This is not a scientific journal. There is no such thing as an "invalid source", there are only things that are true and things that are not, plain and simple. The lengths people will go to in order to avoid validating a piece of data is truly staggering.. And look? Turns out, he was right.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    A source like Chick is invalid, plain and simple. It's like asking Hitler about Jews - some of what he says might be accurate, but you're not going to cite him ever on it. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833509,00.html http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833509,... says the Vatican's wealth is $10-15 billion. I suspect their total net worth is hard to calculate given that much of what they have is priceless - it'd be hard to put a price tag on St. Peter's Basilica.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      There, was that so hard? Googling 'Vatican net worth' and choosing any of several substantially-agreeing links. Sorry I picked the wrong one, but the conclusion is the same: the Vatican is a multi-billion dollar operation.
      - lotharbot 12y ago
        While I agree with the conclusion, I disagree with the method: googling for something and choosing from one of several "agreeing" links doesn't actually protect you from being wrong, if most of those links got their wrong data from the same original source.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    Appeal to authority plus ad hominem against said authority leaves us back where we started, which was lack of verifiable evidence to support the assertion. In lieu of accounting statements from the worldwide Catholic Church and its executive offices in the Vatican, we must necessarily make reasonable implications from the information that is available. The Catholic Church has hundreds of billions of dollars in expenditures. The Vatican has control over some portion of church revenues. It also has a publicly verifiable collection of religion-inspired artwork on display. It owns territory near a major European capital as independently sovereign territory, which is also a major tourist destination. Its subordinate entities in foreign jurisdictions have been the beneficiaries of legacies, escheat, and estate bequests for literally centuries, while largely benefiting from favorable treatment from the secular authority in majority Christian territory. While the Vatican itself may not have direct and absolute ownership over the assets of the Church, it does have significant control over them. You don't have to be a cardinal to know that the Vatican archivists probably don't absolutely need to solicit direct donations for historical preservation. But the Church is also a massive worldwide bureaucracy. The archivists may, in fact, find it far easier to fund their work via direct donations than by competing with all the other things the Church tries to do. Having theoretical access to a budget does not always mean you can actually spend the cash in a timely or expedient fashion. Ethically speaking, I'm confident the archivists mean well, but they will essentially be proving that the Vatican can get additional revenue by holding the deteriorating old documents in its collection for ransom. We have as much reason to donate to them for this as we do to donate money to ExxonMobil to check that their pipelines running through wilderness areas are not leaking oil into them. If they can't maintain their own property, maybe they should be selling it to someone who can. There are plenty of museums and universities that would love to help in that way.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  To return to the topic: how big do you think the Vatican is? Net worth, round to billions.