There exists a silly, insufferable habit of academia-- namely, that they will not accept any common sense as a trustworthy source of information. they absolutely REFUSE to accept any common sense offerings.
A lot of the rules of proper grammar, spelling, sentence structure, and punctuation are things that I learned from reading a lot. I learned of these norms far earlier than I might have read of them stated outright in a grammar peerage book.
This brings up another issue. One person's obscure information requiring academic referencing in MLA format is another's person's knowledge that they knew and grew up with.
I remember an assignment back in ninth grade English class. The teacher stated, "Anything that is not common knowledge must have a works cited. Hmmm... small problem there. What exactly is the line of demarcation separating "common knowledge" from "obscure trivia that must be referenced in the bibliography? (Hehe, "bibliography," there's a throwback term for all you nanopet and gigagotchi owners.)
A wealth of information that I learned growing up is possibly considered obscure modern trivia by most typical non-well-read, non-well-traveled, middle-class people.
For example, the capital of Bangladesh is Dhaka. I can tell you what the population is, the literacy rate, the chief imports and exports, the average climate, the average life expectancy, and a host of other fascinating geographical tidbits.
I do not quite remember when and whence I first learned of these facts. Perhaps from my parents, perhaps from family friends, perhaps from a world map that was published twenty years ago.
The point is, to me this is all common sense.
I can list all the American States in alphabetic order. I learned this from a children's song back in fourth grade. I know this is reliable as the list of the states in alphabetical order-- because it is accurate. That may be a tautological trivial statement, but oh well. I know it is true because it is true.
Must I really go hunt down an academic source to prove that this is fact? Or should I perhaps scavenge the folk authors who wrote this gem, this gem that is now in the public domain?
'''''But you have to find some modern-day academic source, accepted in peer-reviewed academic circles, that states this. and the information thing can't be repealed or retracted''''''
Why exactly?
''''''Ssooo that any person reading this can now know this. You must cite a reliable source that documents this information. So that this information can be part of that heretofore ignorant person's repertoire.'''''
So, what you are saying is that that person is stupid. Okay, so that person is stupid. Okay, so if they are stupid, then how in the world is the act of citing even more academic sources going to help them expand their knowledge base? Wouldn't this just further confuse and upset them?
They didn't know this prior. But they are somehow magically going o be able to handle the burden of this knowledge upon their delicate psyches now?
This tedious insistence of academia is cumbersome and offers little practical, real-world use.
A lot of the rules of proper grammar, spelling, sentence structure, and punctuation are things that I learned from reading a lot. I learned of these norms far earlier than I might have read of them stated outright in a grammar peerage book.
This brings up another issue. One person's obscure information requiring academic referencing in MLA format is another's person's knowledge that they knew and grew up with.
I remember an assignment back in ninth grade English class. The teacher stated, "Anything that is not common knowledge must have a works cited. Hmmm... small problem there. What exactly is the line of demarcation separating "common knowledge" from "obscure trivia that must be referenced in the bibliography? (Hehe, "bibliography," there's a throwback term for all you nanopet and gigagotchi owners.)
A wealth of information that I learned growing up is possibly considered obscure modern trivia by most typical non-well-read, non-well-traveled, middle-class people.
For example, the capital of Bangladesh is Dhaka. I can tell you what the population is, the literacy rate, the chief imports and exports, the average climate, the average life expectancy, and a host of other fascinating geographical tidbits.
I do not quite remember when and whence I first learned of these facts. Perhaps from my parents, perhaps from family friends, perhaps from a world map that was published twenty years ago.
The point is, to me this is all common sense.
I can list all the American States in alphabetic order. I learned this from a children's song back in fourth grade. I know this is reliable as the list of the states in alphabetical order-- because it is accurate. That may be a tautological trivial statement, but oh well. I know it is true because it is true.
Must I really go hunt down an academic source to prove that this is fact? Or should I perhaps scavenge the folk authors who wrote this gem, this gem that is now in the public domain?
'''''But you have to find some modern-day academic source, accepted in peer-reviewed academic circles, that states this. and the information thing can't be repealed or retracted''''''
Why exactly?
''''''Ssooo that any person reading this can now know this. You must cite a reliable source that documents this information. So that this information can be part of that heretofore ignorant person's repertoire.'''''
So, what you are saying is that that person is stupid. Okay, so that person is stupid. Okay, so if they are stupid, then how in the world is the act of citing even more academic sources going to help them expand their knowledge base? Wouldn't this just further confuse and upset them?
They didn't know this prior. But they are somehow magically going o be able to handle the burden of this knowledge upon their delicate psyches now?
This tedious insistence of academia is cumbersome and offers little practical, real-world use.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment