Citing outside papers in philosophy discussions.

[ProfectusInfinity]

So here's a scenario.

A verse you follow has a high tier that you generally disagree with, and a crucial piece of supporting evidence for that tier is the verse's mention of a certain philosophical idea.

I say "mention" because while the philosophical idea itself is mentioned frequently, the tenets of it aren't depicted in-depth, or are even contradicted, hence why you disagree with the tier in the first place.

In the process of crafting a rebuttal, you decide to look up peer-reviewed writing or otherwise professional essays about the philosophical idea, because you would like to cite them in order to explain why the verse uses that idea incorrectly.

Would the above be allowed? I know that a core part of this forum's standards is to center the conversation around how a verse abides by any scientific/philosophical idea it mentions, rather than debate what ratings the idea itself would entail. To be clear however, the rebuttal wouldn't overuse the outside sources and would ultimately be centered around how it's treated in-verse. To elaborate, 5-10% of the rebuttal's overall content would be "One of the tenets of this idea is that such cannnot be expressed under it," then adding the citations in basic wiki format to prove that this requirement is accepted by scholars, then the other 90-95% would be centered around whether or not the verse follows it.

 

[SweetDao]

I say "mention" because while the philosophical idea itself is mentioned frequently, the tenets of it aren't depicted in-depth, or are even contradicted, hence why you disagree with the tier in the first place.

Basically just a name-drop? It should go imo.

In the process of crafting a rebuttal, you decide to look up peer-reviewed writing or otherwise professional essays about the philosophical idea, because you would like to cite them in order to explain why the verse uses that idea incorrectly.

I'd say it's a good initiative, alongside the claims that "it just mentioned the idea and doesn't elaborate".

Would the above be allowed? I know that a core part of this forum's standards is to center the conversation around how a verse abides by any scientific/philosophical idea it mentions, rather than debate what ratings the idea itself would entail. To be clear however, the rebuttal wouldn't overuse the outside sources and would ultimately be centered around how it's treated in-verse. To elaborate, 5-10% of the rebuttal's overall content would be "One of the tenets of this idea is that such cannnot be expressed under it," then adding the citations in basic wiki format to prove that this requirement is accepted by scholars, then the other 90-95% would be centered around whether or not the verse follows it.

Imo that's fine and a good way to try and argue for a change.