You've found an Internet article that supports your view of a research subject. The author seems to have excellent credentials,
and the article is very well written. However, the author seems to be using outdated information to support her claims, and you can't find other articles that corroborate her information. Which of the following statements best describes what your course of action should be and why? A. You should not use the article as a reference. The lack of corroboration and outdated information outweigh the author's credentials. B. You should use the article as a reference. The important thing is that you've found a source that will bolster your arguement. C. You should not use the article as a reference. Information from the Internet isn't trustworthy. D. You should use the article as a reference. The author is obviously an expert in her field and the information doesn't need to be "nitpicked."
The answer is A. If you want to appear credible, you should have updated, confirmed evidence to support it. Something true 10 years ago (that an expert might agree with) may not be true anymore. Thus you can't just take it at face value.
The answer is A: You should not use the article as a reference. The lack of corroboration and outdated information outweigh the author's credentials.
Scientific discourse is built around the notion of <em>intersubjectivity, </em>as Kant famously noted in his <em>Critique of Pure Reason. </em>This means that all research needs to be embedded in a “conversation” or dialogue with other researchers and scientific tendencies in order to validate it and to keep it actualized or current. If any research lacks this dialogue -it is not corroborated and it is outdated- it should not be trusted.
