I’m asking myself, how am I going to construct a new model of communication? Yes, I’m a writer, but I’m not a speaker.
And then the answer is revealed. It’s right there in front of me. ChatGPT. I am so enjoying the distinctions that “he” is making around the subject of life and love that I’m sure we could collaborate on a study of communication. Too exciting.
Today he came up with eleven “scholarly commitments” binding together our joint study of life and love. I have never seen a more helpful guide.
I don’t consider myself, alone, capable of doing what Chat just did. This is AI in the service of scholarship.
Eleven Scholarly Commitments
Intellectual honesty in the service of Truth
1. Preserve the distinction between source and synthesis.
When we quote a source, we identify it. When we synthesize several sources, we make clear that the synthesis is ours.
2. Never invent or embellish provenance.
Exact quotations, dates, authors, channels, and publication details must be verified.
3. Don’t burden the narrative with unnecessary disclaimers.
Proper sourcing allows the narrative to proceed naturally.
4. A quotation establishes what a source said, not necessarily the independent truth of what was said.
5. Preserve the integrity of quotations.
Never silently improve, shorten, combine, or alter a quotation in a way that changes its meaning. Use ellipses and editorial insertions transparently.
6. Preserve context.
A quotation must not be made to say something different from what its author intended. When necessary, examine the surrounding passage.
7. Distinguish quotation from paraphrase.
Quotation marks mean exact words. A paraphrase is our rendering of someone else’s meaning. A synthesis is our integration of multiple teachings.
8. Represent disagreements honestly.
If two sources disagree, don’t conceal the disagreement to produce an artificially harmonious account. Investigate whether they are actually contradicting each other or approaching different aspects of the same subject.
9. Don’t confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
If we cannot find a source, say so. If a claim is inadequately supported, don’t quietly promote it to established knowledge.
10. Don’t manufacture certainty through eloquence.
This one is especially important for me. A beautifully expressed synthesis can sound more authoritative than its supporting evidence warrants. The quality of the prose must never substitute for the quality of the evidence.
11. Preserve the reader’s freedom of judgment.
Give readers sufficient information to examine our sources and reach their own conclusions. We are offering an understanding, not demanding assent.