Research Paper


Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>OK....so....if you are that upset about what I'm writing, dont read it.<<

As Ben Cartwright would say: "WHOA Hoss!!!!!!!

Gregory, when you put any part of your thesis here, you make it fair game for criticism and comment for those who favour it and those who disfavour it alike. That's what a public access forum run along the lines of the symposium model is all aboit. You cannot go and say "Only comment on it if you like it." You have to deal with the points and the counterpoints of those who disagree with it.

I agree with Paul in that you have a lot of courage in presenting your premise here in public, and my hat's off to you for that as well. However, you better be ready to take the praises and the damns in equal measure. In the end, it's not what you get praised for that you'll have to defend. What you'll have to defend are those stands with which your target audience/reader disagrees. You can hardly do that if your unwilling to even so much as listen to what those criticisms are.

>>If you really feel that my paper is biased and one sided, then you are right, that is the point of a thesis paper, to play into a bias and use it correctly to prove your theory<<

Not *entirely* accurate I'm afraid and there ain't no such animal as an arguement which somehow "proves" a theory. A theory in the scientific sense is a summery and highly probably explaination and of observed fact.

It is not an observed fact that the Titanic's loss was caused by arrogance. It *is* an observed fact that the ship's loss was caused by a collision with an iceberg. I think I can make a case for complacency on some level, but that's a fairly common thread in a lot of accidents. The arrogance angle was part of the mythos that arose after the fact and is one of the usual claims advanced by politicians, editors, policy wonks, and preachers. You'll seldom ever hear if from trained investigators who actually *know* what they're talking about.

What "Proves" a proposition is the evidence out there which actually supports it and *that's* where your going to run into a lot of trouble. Where you run into even more trouble is if you go into a research project where you've already decided what the conclusion will be befor you've even begun to do the research. This approach virtually gaurantees you'll be wrong on just about everything befor you even put your first stroke of ink to paper. Even worse, it's a flawed approach to history which reduces it to grotesquely misleading and badly distorted stereotypes.
 
Jul 20, 2000
1,479
5
313
Gregory,
You say: "and stole the lives of over fifteen hundred souls."

Mark,
You say: "There are only three confirmed facts to this that I see: ... of which No 2) is: The ship took over 1,500 people to their deaths, ....."

That statement is not a fact. It is not true. - Only 1,496 died!

Lester
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
Lester,

The general number of those lost is around 1,500. Some sources have less, some have more. No disrespect intended, but are you going to pick at me in the case simply because I was at least seven off? Some sources do support and promote the "over-1,500" mark. In any case, that wasn't the point I was making to Greg.

Your statement does, however, clarify my point to Greg even more. Thank you. He didn't get three statements correct - but two!

To Greg:

Hypotheses and theories are supported by fact. That was the point of my comment above. Of the intro you shared, there were only two facts (although the number of those perished is in question, but I'll respectfully give the point-at-hand to Lester, as he is our resident voice on counts and tallies) in your posts; the rest was supposition, speculation, myth, perception, and opinion all rolled together to make for a dramatic presentation - that's it! If the points of your argument are not supported by fact, then they are unverified, and referring to them as facts when they are not is a travesty. I am not opposed to your beliefs or your argument(s); but I do suggest that you support that argument with the research at hand, otherwise, what's the use in doing research in the first place?

What you're essentially saying here is this: "I believe this to be, but the evidences points to a different conclusion. Ergo (therefore) the truth is what I believe it is."

How, then, can you defend that statement? You're implying that all those who have been doing research on the subject for years, even decades, are wrong. If not criticized for your unproven points, you'll certainly be criticized for that. True, authorities on the subject are not always correct in their assertions or findings, but they know and understand a hell of a lot more than you do on the subject. That's why you're seeking out their work to support your claim(s). If the evidence points to a different conclusion, then yours cannot be true.

Of course, there's a matter of interpretation, but in this case, the evidence to the contrary is overwhelmingly against you. Still, you are brave to post such claims. I do wish you luck. It'll be a real challenge for you.

By the way, see, Greg? You've just been proven wrong on one statement you've made (the "over 1,500" claim), so now you can see what we mean. You can now use the information provided by Mr. Mitcham and carry on....
 
Jul 20, 2000
1,479
5
313
Hello Mark,

I only "picked" to the extent that the statement was wrong.

I know many sources gives figures in excess of 1,500, but that does not make them correct. None that I am aware of support their high figures with a name-by-name count. Such a count yields 1,496.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
Understood, Noel. I know exactly what you mean, ;) hehe.


Lester,

I know. I was merely saying that, although the "over-1,500" has since been proven wrong, at least that claim by Greg has come from books, and that's why I recognized it, so-to-speak. Thanks again for correcting me.
happy.gif
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jun 28, 1998
1,690
18
313
Dublin
'Twas brillig, and the slithey toves,
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe*
All mimsy were the Borogoves
And the mome raths outgrabe.

(*the area around a sundial)

For my own part, Noel, I think there are already plenty of term papers and the like chucked into the area officially designated 'Titanic Research Articles.'

Would it too much to include one more?
Hardly!
 
Aug 29, 2000
4,562
28
323
"..I think there are already plenty of term papers and the like chucked into the area officially designated 'Titanic Research Articles."
Realizing I might be asking for trouble, I still will voice an opinion that everybody has to begin somewhere in the slippery arena of Lofty Titanic Research and the chronicling of same. Encouraging young people, amateurs, tired old retirees with time at last (and incidentally in whose hands the future of all things Titanic might well rest), to get out in the field and TRY should be encouraged. I am heartened to see the various Titanic societies around the world publish the earnest efforts of a very broad spectrum of hopeful writers. It's all good in my book.
 

Paul Rogers

Member
Jun 1, 2000
1,244
14
313
58
West Sussex, UK
I promised myself I'd never again post to a thread that Senan had contributed to. Oh well, here's one last post, for the road as it were. If only I had a vorpal blade available instead.
quote:

For my own part, Noel, I think there are already plenty of term papers and the like chucked into the area officially designated 'Titanic Research Articles.'
Well, for my own part, I think it's damn lucky that those so-called "term papers...chucked into..." this site are appreciated by readers other than yourself, Senan. Literary snobbery does not become you; neither does unnecessary and downright nasty denigration of others' efforts.​
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
Literary snobbery doesn't become anybody.

My only issue with Gregory Side's premise is that he decided what the findings would be *befor* he even started to research the paper. Hardly good historical methodology there, but I don't wish him ill because of that. Quite the oppsite in fact. All I would ask were I in a position to do so would be that he leave the question/premise open and follow the evidence wherever it leads and let the chips fall where they may.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
I hold the same position, Michael: I do not want to discourage him - only to help him. It's important to remember that he is young and just starting (actually, not even having started yet, really). Many high schoolers have to form hypotheses and then follow those. He is focused - and that is a good thing - but now he should learn to keep an open mind, which is important in doing research. Quite often, hypotheses changes as the research develops.

It is very possible (although I won't swear to it) that he may have already moved on, as I haven't seen a new post here from him recently. I hope we haven't discouraged him. His posts have reflected determination from him, so I doubt that. I just hope that he's gained more insight than annoyance from this thread, and I wish him luck. It's a sorry day when someone puts forth so much effort and time into doing Titanic research and is ultimately rejected by a teacher (or any other authority) because of inaccurate or incomplete data established by firm belief rather than a passion to seek the truth.

Good luck, Gregory!
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jun 28, 1998
1,690
18
313
Dublin
Hi Paul!

How are your own denigration efforts going?
Not badly, I think.
Oops, would that constitute praise?

Physician, heal thyself.

Best regards,

S
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jun 28, 1998
1,690
18
313
Dublin
It is a question of meaning, I think. Paul says things he doesn't mean (such as that he will never post again, etc).

I would hope he also doesn't mean, even figuratively, that remark about the vorpal blade. Because, at the end of the day, it reflects above very publicly on himself.

Much better to leave the vorpal blade to the world of slithy toves and to your sea-serpent, Paul!

I bear no ill-will towards anyone on this thread, but the word 'research' does has a meaning. It should be not be debased. And I do not say that it has been widely debased, not at all.

But precision is important. Precision helps to bring rigour. Discipline is as important in writing as it is in research. If you label that as snobbery, then the converse of that denunciation is that one can be as slipshod as one likes and justify it on some sort of appeal to democracy...

I know where I stand on that particular question.

My view is that book reviews, term papers (one lamentably footnoted on a single book, and not a very accurate book at that), and opinion generally does not constitute research. Not that all of these worthy endeavours should not have a place. Of course they should.

The alternative to some form of entry requirement for 'research' articles (such as original and fresh information) is to alter the nomenclature to 'Titanic Papers.'

That is accurate at least, and it restores meaning.

It is for the owner of this website, of course, to arrange matters how he likes.

Perhaps I will be allowed my 'opinion,' particularly since it was a mistaken inference taken from an article of mine (which was based explicitly on information available in 1912 and not subsequently) that caused some personalities here to pronounce loftily about standards in research articles.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>But precision is important. Precision helps to bring rigour.<<

Indeed it is, and that cause is not advanced with ad hominums either. Let's dial it back some and deal with the points made rather then the person making them. We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate already in progress.
 
Mar 18, 2000
1,384
21
313
Debate? With Molony participating? You've got to be kidding. I see no debate, I see Molony being insulting. Again.

Why is the owner of this site, or the moderators, allowing Molony to keep insulting other people? Wasn't he kicked off once? Why was he allowed back? AND allowed to keep pulling the same garbage, over and over again?
 

Senan Molony

Member
Jun 28, 1998
1,690
18
313
Dublin
Hi Bill, how are you?

It's okay, you can use my first name.

I don't see that I am doing the insulting on this thread, to be honest. There are no ad hominems from me.

But not for the first time, Bill, you are wrong.

I was never kicked off this site, I left voluntarily like your friend George Behe, and like Phil Gowan. I dare say I might do so again. You can go out and have a beer that night.

I thik your dislike must stem from the Californian... it will be remembered that no-one in the recent discussion was able to offer a single compelling reason why the Mystery Ship MUST Be the Californian.

Your own contribution was that the bow is pointing to the north, I believe, which you later amended to NNE.

Uh-huh.

Paul Rogers has emerged to wield the vorpal blade, supposedly in defence of others, but the reality is that he did not see fit to take up his sword and trusty shield of fair play when two other posters here were snickering about it being a dark and stormy night.

So Paul Rogers is using a cloak for his real purpose, and his supposed anti-denigration stance is not piety but a word starting with h and ending in y and with the letters -ypocris- in between.

He and you seem to have missed Lewis Carroll's point with Jabberwocky, but here is a nice picture to look at.

95437.jpg


It shows Alice with the vorpal blade confronting the Jabberwock.

Of course the said monster was a "Lordite," needless to say Bill. No free speech for "Lordites," isn't that it?

Hope you have a G-R-R-eat weekend! You must come to the BTS one of these days.

Senan
 

Paul Rogers

Member
Jun 1, 2000
1,244
14
313
58
West Sussex, UK
quote:

Paul Rogers has emerged to wield the vorpal blade, supposedly in defence of others, but the reality is that he did not see fit to take up his sword and trusty shield of fair play when two other posters here were snickering about it being a dark and stormy night.
1. I stated my support for Gregory Sides in my post of the 28th March at 5:50pm. Any further post from myself re-stating my position - despite "snickering" from other members - would have been redundant.
quote:

For my own part, Noel, I think there are already plenty of term papers and the like chucked into the area officially designated 'Titanic Research Articles.'
2. You chose to attack, not just one prospective author, but many of the authors who have contributed to ET Research. It was that demonstration of vindictiveness that led to my post of the 2nd April at 8:13pm.
quote:

Of course the said monster was a "Lordite," needless to say Bill. No free speech for "Lordites," isn't that it?
3. Why does everything have to be about Californian? Perhaps this is the first sign of obsession. Actually, the one consistent feature of all your dissatisfying relationships on this Board is: You.
quote:

So Paul Rogers is using a cloak for his real purpose, and his supposed anti-denigration stance is not piety but a word starting with h and ending in y and with the letters -ypocris- in between.
4. You can take your charge of hypocrisy, and the vorpal blade, and refer to Genesis 1:28.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads