# Reliability of Sources?



## Devor (Jan 30, 2012)

This is the internet, we've all seen it.  Most of us, being an opinionated group, have at some time or another even been perpetrators.  But how do we know our sources are reliable?  How can we recognize when a test is flawed or a conclusion is bunk?  How do we recognize when some random poster is "full of it" or knows what they're talking about?

There's a reason that expert opinions are still considered to be, well, opinions.  And I've more than once had professors in college tell me that my textbook was wrong.  So if we can't fully trust the official answers, how do we know?

I'll post my own thoughts later, but to kickstart the conversation a bit, I'll add an observation.  Particularly in my Economic courses, we begin with simple models, come to a conclusion, and then in advanced courses add elements to the model which refute or call those conclusions into question.  I've found similar patterns in other conversations; an answer seems right until you throw some new element into the mix.  And experts, from what I can tell, seem to disagree with one another based on which element they consider to play a more important role, and not because the other is "just wrong."  I think that's an interesting framework for consideration.


----------



## Sparkie (Jan 30, 2012)

My eighth-grade history teacher said something once that sticks with me to this day:  "History is argument."

That's not to say that everything is up for dispute, but when experts look at evidence they will invariably draw their own conclusions.  Sometimes a concensus will be reached, sometimes there will be no agreement at all.

As a writer of fantasy fiction, I try not to worry about source reliability too much.  The important thing, I believe, is to educate yourself about the hard facts.  If any 'expert' thumbs his nose at the hard facts in order to make his argument, don't give him the time out of your day to listen to him.  But if someone respects the evidence at hand and sees things a little differently than other educated people, then listen and form your own opinion of his veiwpoint.


----------



## Amanita (Jan 30, 2012)

> As a writer of fantasy fiction, I try not to worry about source reliability too much.


Me neither. Fantasy isn't about historical accuracy. If you're reading something about real life culture X which is great to use in your story, use it. What does it matter if there's evidence that culture X was different after all? Doesn't have to apply for your fantasy world.
If you want to use the internet for scientific work, there are quite a few things to be taken into consideration, but I don't think any of it is necessary for getting inspiration for fantasy.


----------



## Devor (Jan 30, 2012)

Sparkie said:


> As a writer of fantasy fiction, I try not to worry about source reliability too much.





Amanita said:


> Me neither. Fantasy isn't about historical accuracy.



I guess I should've seen that coming.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jan 30, 2012)

Amanita said:


> Me neither. Fantasy isn't about historical accuracy. If you're reading something about real life culture X which is great to use in your story, use it. What does it matter if there's evidence that culture X was different after all? Doesn't have to apply for your fantasy world.
> If you want to use the internet for scientific work, there are quite a few things to be taken into consideration, but I don't think any of it is necessary for getting inspiration for fantasy.



I think we're more talking about things that ensure consistency and plausibility in a story. Okay, fine, a culture has six-legged horses with glowing red eyes. That's obviously not realistic, and it's not a problem that it's not realistic.

The problem occurs when the characters ride these horses for a week through snowy wilderness where no plants grow, and they didn't bring several hundred pounds of feed with them for the horses. Unless these are magical horses that don't need to eat, logistical issues like that still need to be taken into account.


----------



## Chilari (Jan 30, 2012)

In terms of info on the internet, if it's something historical that is outside my areas of expertise, I tend to try to find something which, at the very leasts, cites a published work - either book or article. Though generally, if what is being cited is academic I'll take that above general audience non-fiction - I saw, for example, that a particular wikipedia article quoted Tom Holland's Rubicon as a source. Now, I've got that book, and another by Holland (Persian Fire), and they're both very well written and very interesting, and they do include academic citations. But they are general reading books, not academic, and as such use probably only ten percent as many references as an academically published book would use. I would not necessarily trust such a citation, not because Tom Holland hasn't done his research - because he has - but because the person who cited Tom Holland is a member of the public with a mild interest in the topic, not an academic, or they'd have looked at Holland's source and used that instead, or they'd have done research on the topic (as I did) using academic sources without ever thinking of using Holland academically, and would thus have quoted such academic sources.

Admittedly, I do frequently use wikipedia when researching for fiction. A lot of the time, it is cited correctly, from an academic  or semi-academic source. But if the info I find is without a citation, or has an unreliable or questionable one, I try to find out elsewhere. Though I am not currently in the world of academia, I still use Jstor occasionally for research - I can't read the bulk of the articles any more, but I can still read the first page, and for a lot of the time there's at least one article where the information I want is on the first page.


----------



## Reaver (Jan 30, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I think we're more talking about things that ensure consistency and plausibility in a story. The problem occurs when the characters ride these horses for a week through snowy wilderness where no plants grow, and they didn't bring several hundred pounds of feed with them for the horses. Unless these are magical horses that don't need to eat, logistical issues like that still need to be taken into account.



I'm right there, with you on this point, Ben.  For example, if my MC and his pals are taking a ship somewhere, I take into account how far they're traveling, how many knots the ship is moving at, prevailing winds, currents, etc.  Not to mention whether or not the ship is a sail-powered ship or mechanical.  This goes for overland travel as well...terrain, mode of transport, weather and so on.  To me, these things are important.  Unless of course you've got some magical form of getting from A to B, that is...then the details can get a bit fuzzy and it really doesn't bother me...much.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 30, 2012)

Devor said:


> There's a reason that expert opinions are still considered to be, well, opinions.



Nitpic: "Opinion" is not an antonym to "fact".


----------



## Reaver (Jan 30, 2012)

Devor said:


> That depends on which definition of opinion is being used.  It's your opinion that I was using a definition which is not an antonym to fact; it's my opinion that I was.  Similarly, experts can disagree about the facts without being objectionably wrong, making their conclusions an opinion and not a fact.  Did that make any sense?



Makes perfect sense to me. My opinions are often combinations of conjecture and speculation with a little dash of empirical data. Wait...aren't conjecture and speculation the same thing?  Yep...never mind.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 30, 2012)

Reaver said:


> Makes perfect sense to me. My opinions are often combinations of conjecture and speculation with a little dash of empirical data. Wait...aren't conjecture and speculation the same thing?  Yep...never mind.



A conjecture is a proposition that hasn't been specifically proven or disproven, but is generally accepted to be true anyway.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 19, 2012)

Sparkie said:


> As a writer of fantasy fiction, I try not to worry about source reliability too much.





			
				Amanita said:
			
		

> Me neither. Fantasy isn't about historical accuracy.



There is a difference between not using the historical facts, or altering them to meet your desires or the needs of your story, and not understanding the facts to begin with. Not knowing the facts can lead to inadvertent mistakes in your story, where you think you are keeping in line with historical facts but have instead relied on a source that gives misinformation. I think it is a mistake to do such things inadvertently. You have complete license to stray as far from historical fact as you like regarding any subject matter in your story, but if you think you are presenting something historically accurate and you aren't because you've relied on a bad source, I think you have a problem on your hands.

So the discussion on source reliability is germane to all writers, in my view, whether writing Fantasy or something else.


----------



## Fnord (Feb 19, 2012)

Devor said:


> This is the internet, we've all seen it.  Most of us, being an opinionated group, have at some time or another even been perpetrators.  But how do we know our sources are reliable?  How can we recognize when a test is flawed or a conclusion is bunk?  How do we recognize when some random poster is "full of it" or knows what they're talking about?
> 
> There's a reason that expert opinions are still considered to be, well, opinions.  And I've more than once had professors in college tell me that my textbook was wrong.  So if we can't fully trust the official answers, how do we know?
> 
> I'll post my own thoughts later, but to kickstart the conversation a bit, I'll add an observation.  Particularly in my Economic courses, we begin with simple models, come to a conclusion, and then in advanced courses add elements to the model which refute or call those conclusions into question.  I've found similar patterns in other conversations; an answer seems right until you throw some new element into the mix.  And experts, from what I can tell, seem to disagree with one another based on which element they consider to play a more important role, and not because the other is "just wrong."  I think that's an interesting framework for consideration.



Hehe, if you're majoring in economics you'll run into those whirlwinds of ideas and credibility clash quite a bit. I remember having a three-hour class in macro theory where we dissected the Cobb-Douglas and the Solow Growth model and talked about efficient markets and Pareto Optimality and then I'd leave and go to my next three-hour class where we completely dashed all that on the rocks and talked about the meat of markets being conditions of movement toward disequilibrium.  Fun stuff, but could definitely be mind-boggling.    But that's why I love the field.  

As it works for fantasy writing--well the nice thing about fantasy writing *is* that you can kind of fudge it a little.  Wikipedia certainly wouldn't pass muster for a dissertation, but it does pretty well for the average insight on a subject for writing fiction.


----------



## JCFarnham (Feb 20, 2012)

During my marketing degree I spent a lot of time slogging through research. 

Typically for me to consider an article or source credible I need first to read around the subject. Knowing the generalisation for a topic tends to help in coming to an educated conclusion at the end of it all. Secondly its worth finding out where the article or source comes from. Peer reviewed, academic and frequently cited journals, for example, trump all others in my opinion. Not only can you tell that they're good (many academics cite it), not only is it generally held to be based in academia, but it is held by those who matter as useful (in a university setting the fact that they subscribed to the journal in the first place helps).

The best thing to do is know your sources. If people frequently disagree with one particular source it might be worth taking it with a pinch of salt. Now, you'll notice I didn't say "ignore it". I never ignore a source unless its obviously bunk, opinions and conjecture, even when a bit dodgy, can help you to form an informed opinion on the matter. At the very least you now know exactly what _shouldn't_ be believed on the subject.

One of the the most important pieces of advice I've ever been given on the matter of reliable sources is thus: "Don't trust just one source, find at least two others. Even if you don't end up using half of it you've at least gotten a feel for the subject." What I take that to mean is "Understanding for yourself is more important than reproducing what may or may not be unfounded." It's also worth purposefully finding conflicting research to give yourself the other side of the argument as it were.

So. That's my take on this. 

If you've ever done a research based degree (e.g., Marketing is chock FULL of journal reading) you'll tend to know what to trust when it comes to sources of information. But when in doubt, published academic books trump internet resources (the internet is too editable in a way)


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 20, 2012)

Peer-reviewed, primary literature is the best, I agree. And even when you read those, you have to read with a critical eye. I remember going through such articles in graduate school, from the most prestigious journals around, and dissecting them to figure out if the claims of the authors were warranted, whether their methodology supported it, whether they over-reached, etc.

This holds true in anything from contentious hard-science issues like climate change (where politics makes it impossible to draw any conclusions about a study from material in the general media) to historical studies, social sciences studies dealing with contemporary society, and the like. 

Of course, most people that like to debate scientific issues, particularly when they impact public policy, have never even see a primary source, and are generally self-selecting among biased media to form their opinions. Scientific literacy among the populace is a real problem in the U.S., on the whole. People are easily manipulated as a consequence.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Feb 22, 2012)

Wow this is a difficult thing to answer.  On the one hand, when I am reading a novel, and a writer makes what I call a critical error (eg. The nobleman crossed the floor then dropped his wool cape on the chair, revealing his indigo doublet, the finest at the ball.....) I instantly frown and feel disillusioned.  The author has failed to make me align with them, and it almost always leaves a bad taste in my mouth whether the story is good or not.  (There's two mistakes in my fake example of historical fiction, BTW; one much worse than the other.  I'll give you a cookie if you know what they are.) 
On the other hand, I have read books that almost read like textbooks.  If someone does research, I think it's a good thing, but to feel the need to put it all in a story.... that's not good.  Readers are willing to learn, and indeed many of them are already knowledgeable about clothing, warfare, weapons, historical technologies, etc.  But I don't think they appreciate a writer giving a lecture on anything, no matter how cool the subject is (at least I don't).  I could go on and on about clothing, for example (because I have done many many hours of research and papers on the subject), but when I write, I only barely mention clothing.  It's a secondary consideration, and one not important enough to bore a reader with the details (even when I am fascinated with the subject).
Incidentally, I'd love to start a thread asking for discrepancies people have encountered in novels which could have been avoided by a little more research.

It's hard to do research, and this forum is wonderful because it exposes us to people who have done research on subjects pertaining to their own interests.  I love the answers I've received on my posted threads, and have enjoyed reading the answers given to questions I never thought to ask.


----------



## Ravana (Feb 22, 2012)

(1) The nobleman would not have been wearing his cape "across the floor" at a ball.
(2) He also forgot to wipe his shoes. 

(Though I have a suspicion what you had in mind has more to do with the color of the doublet. I'll leave it to someone else to try sorting out _why_ it's a problem. And, yes, I _do_ know.  )


----------



## Caged Maiden (Feb 22, 2012)

I started a new thread so if anyone wants to discuss inconsistencies which could have been avoided with more research, it's here: http://mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-questions/2490-discrepancies-lack-research.html
@Ravana I hadn't even thought about it being a ball, I just threw that word in, but you are correct, he wouldn't have worn an outer garment to a formal event!  I was more concerned with the fabric..... a noble would have possibly worn an outer garment of wool, but his cape should probably be velvet and embroidered and decorated with semi-precious stones and gold thread.    I think I saw somewhere that you were SCA.....
 yes..... what is it about that darn doublet?   My example was on the fly, sorry not perfect, but I read once in a historical fiction novel about a woman (minor noble) who goes to court in a violet gown.  Um.... okay it's a romance novel but please do some basic research.  They do call it _royal_ purple for a reason!


----------



## Ravana (Feb 22, 2012)

anihow said:


> @Ravana I hadn't even thought about it being a ball, I just threw that word in, but you are correct, he wouldn't have worn an outer garment to a formal event!  I was more concerned with the fabric..... a noble would have possibly worn an outer garment of wool, but his cape should probably be velvet and embroidered and decorated with semi-precious stones and gold thread.



Depends on time, place, and noble: wool remained an excellent material for cloaks, if what you were referring to was an outer garment and not a dress cloak. And if it was an outer garment, he would have left it with the hat-check clerk… well, okay, or removed it and folded it over his arm. 



> yes..... what is it about that darn doublet?   My example was on the fly, sorry not perfect, but I read once in a historical fiction novel about a woman (minor noble) who goes to court in a violet gown.  Um.... okay it's a romance novel but please do some basic research.  They do call it _royal_ purple for a reason!



Hee. Actually, the answer there is a primarily linguistic one: few people would have _called_ the color "indigo" prior to Newton inserting it into his spectrum of visible light… which happened about the same time doublets went _out_ of fashion in most European courts. 

The color itself (and the word) was available long before then, though… in fact, the same chemical that made indigo such a valuable dyestuff is the one that is found in woad. It's just that indigo has a lot _more_ of it, so once the Brits had secured its sources of production, it largely supplanted woad. This also means that under normal conditions, one would not have lavished enough of the dye on a piece of cloth to produce an "indigo" (extremely dark blue) color, nor would it have been considered a more desirable color than the rich, bright blue ("royal," or what have you) you'd get from a couple dye baths fewer anyway. They _could_ have–if they happened to love the color: I do–but it isn't terribly likely, nor would everyone else have been impressed by it.

As for purples: again, depends on time and place. A "superior" purple would have been the result of using murex (hideously expensive), overdyeing a blue with kermes or cochineal (ditto), or using brazilwood (little cheaper… in spite of its name, the wood was known from Asia prior to the Portuguese discovering it growing abundantly in South America). Lesser purples could be achieved by overdyeing a blue with madder, though given that dyeing in blue from woad was a fairly time-consuming process to begin with, this would either end up using a top-end piece of blue cloth (pricier, but not as) or giving a relatively unimpressive light purple or purplish-pink result. However, by the time anyone was inclined to do such things in the first place, purples had long since entered into the sumptuary laws of many locales, so lower classes weren't allowed to wear the color anyway. (Nor, in many places, the better reds, possibly any red.)


----------



## Caged Maiden (Feb 22, 2012)

I think it's in the Phoenix Portrait that Queen Elizabeth is wearing an indigo dress.  I remember reading that she was making a statement by wearing the peasant color, and I had to laugh, I think I would have liked her.... then again maybe not.  Anyways.  Wow, you know more about dying than I do for sure, which is awesome.  I haven't done any dying, natural or not, because I spend what precious little time I have sewing.  I tend to rely on portraits and color charts and descriptions, but I will have to look more into dying practices just for A&S.  I am not going to do it, because as you've pointed out, its terribly time-consuming (and I bet messy) but it is definitely something worth doing a bit more reading about.
I get all excitable about design and so that's where I focus more energy.  I love construction and can't help but look at a painting and think... I can make that.
Thank you for a delightful exchange.


----------



## Ravana (Feb 22, 2012)

anihow said:


> I am not going to do it, because as you've pointed out, its terribly time-consuming (and I bet messy)



"Smelly" is probably the most important term, if you're going for period process. If you aren't, use Rit. 

Ten months ago, I would have known very little about dyeing; I actually acquired most of my knowledge doing research for the Machiavel game economy.


----------



## SeverinR (Feb 27, 2012)

Wouldn't the room to purge cloaks be the cloak room?

I have dyed feathers with rit, I would never consider doing it traditional. Turkey feathers in red and yellow look great. Usually one dip is enough, old time dyes would be multiple dips and no where near the color we have today. Darker color meant more dye used and more time in the dye.

Back to the op:
In fantasy you want some common ground with the real world, something for the reader to stand on while we dazzle them with fields of dragons facing knights in magical armor, unicorns with maidens frolicking after them.  But the part they know needs to be fairly accurate.  I doubt that someone will stop reading just because a civilian horse charged into a pack of hungry wolves to rescue his rider, it does raise doubt to how strong the created world is.


----------

