Timeline for What does "show your work" mean in the context of exegesis?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:37 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://unix.stackexchange.com/ with https://unix.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 1, 2015 at 17:52 | history | edited | SusanMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Jan 27, 2015 at 10:02 | comment | added | Caleb Mod | @RonMaimon You're so full of baloney dude! Don't you get tired of crying wolf? As often as not this site's "show your work" policy does just the opposite: it serves as a crutch to give a platform to answers that would otherwise be discarded as complete balderdash. There are all manner of conclusions (including some of yours) presented around here, some of which one or more mods find ridiculous and would just assume pitch. But, thanks to this policy, anything with a half baked line of reasoning showing how the conclusion was arrived at working up from the text gets a pass. So catch a clue ;-) | |
| Jan 27, 2015 at 9:35 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | This is complete crap. People vote based on the information provided, and the claim "show your work" is just there to censor conclusions you don't like, because you can declare that they are unsupported, downvoted, and to the upvoters, you are out of your mind. | |
| Jan 14, 2014 at 1:09 | comment | added | Dɑvïd | This example of "show your work" amazed and shamed me. Understanding the Bible has to be worth as much effort, or so it seems to me. | |
| Jan 11, 2014 at 21:14 | comment | added | Dan Mod | I also wanted to reprint one of Jon's comments elsewhere for preservation: " I think I know what my problem is: if we can't reproduce the logical argument of a commentary, it might be useful as a historical source, but it doesn't (in itself) count as an answer that is backed up. For some questions, that might be the best we have, I suppose. But in general, we should be able to reproduce the work that a commentator did to arrive at their answer. If we can't, the answer fails to show it's work even if the conclusion is correct. No commentator is authoritative enough to be above this standard." | |
| Jan 5, 2014 at 6:48 | comment | added | Dan | <slow clap>.... This is pure gold. | |
| Jan 3, 2014 at 22:34 | vote | accept | CalebMod | ||
| Jan 3, 2014 at 22:34 | |||||
| Jan 3, 2014 at 14:51 | history | edited | CalebMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 76 characters in body
|
| Jan 3, 2014 at 13:05 | history | edited | CalebMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
even more tuning
|
| Jan 3, 2014 at 12:39 | history | edited | CalebMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
more fine tuning
|
| Jan 3, 2014 at 12:25 | history | edited | CalebMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fine tune
|
| Jan 3, 2014 at 12:11 | history | edited | CalebMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fine tune
|
| Jan 3, 2014 at 10:53 | history | edited | CalebMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
formatting for clarity
|
| Jan 3, 2014 at 10:32 | comment | added | Jon Ericson StaffMod | Absolutely brilliant. | |
| Jan 3, 2014 at 10:16 | history | edited | CalebMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarify that I am not actually advocating stripping all conclusions from answers, only evaluating them on the merits of the other parts
|
| Jan 3, 2014 at 9:31 | history | answered | CalebMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |