1 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Announcement: New Rules, Guidelines and Flair System
But if you can post an article or a paper or another source, then you necessarily have done some research on the topic, no? I can't think of a situation where you know that a specific paper or encyclopedia entry gives a good answer to a question but didn't at very least study it yourself. You seem to think of a situation where the one is the case but not the other?
Comment by Pyrrhic_Defeatist at 06/11/2018 at 19:21 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
a situation where you know that a specific paper or encyclopedia entry gives a good answer to a question but didn't at very least study it yourself
It's the *inverse* of this situation that I worry about. Where I have studied something and could give (what I consider) a substantive answer- but without a good specific source (e.g. "The Genealogy of Morality" and not the more specific "Section 7, Treatise 2 of The Genealogy of Morality"). Until I read this thread I assumed that even a substantive answer without proper citation would be breaking the rules. The moderator's comments elsewhere make me think that a general reference or basic link for further reading would be sufficient, which would lead to me posting much more often than I do.