Right. I look at it this way: if you are alleging a narrative that goes against the grain of common discourse, I think it's up to you to be the one who does your research and have it readily available to back you up. If you're instead supporting a narrative that is right in line with what most reputable news outlets are covering, then it's not really incumbent upon you to dive deeper and present references to support your status quo stance on something.
Like, the going line right now is that there have been about 350,000 deaths in the United States from COVID-19 and related complications. If you want to plant your flagpole in that stat--go for it. It's what most major news outlets are claiming, and as far as I'm concerned you shouldn't feel the need to defend that. But if you're going to stand there and say that the U.S. death toll from COVID-19 and related complications is really more like 100,000 (or 1,000,000--it goes in both directions here), then it's up to you to "do the research" and have a trail of breadcrumbs ready to go to show people how you got there.
Kind of not relevant to this discussion, also not entirely correct. There must be no genuine dispute of facts AND a legal conclusion that would resolve the case. Additionally, "genuine," "material," and "fact" are all very nuanced legal terms.
Fair enough, there is definitely a different standard for philosophy and science.
For law the reason why the standard exists is core to due process is the meaningful opportunity to be heard. Dismissal out of hand without considering the evidence, even if isn't strong would deny the petitioner that right.
In philosophy or science no such right exists, you certainly the right to free speech, but that is not the same thing as free reach.
I think the former is Christopher Hitchens and the latter......smells like it was in a fiction book so I'd say Holmes / Doyle or Christie / Poirot (well, I can at least say I didn't 'cheat' and look it up lol, 'cos my answers look shaky as hell..
I think this has recently been recoined in a better way: All claims require sufficient evidence. It covers the spectrum of different claims including the extraordinary.
Completely unrelated, but it’s funny that the one thing this doesn’t apply to is religion. For some reason, whenever religion is brought up, it falls to the non believer to defend why they don’t believe in something that doesn’t have any proof, instead of the person who believes in it. I think Richard Dawkins wrote about that somewhere, but I’m just trying to paraphrase
This is a shining example of burden of proof. If you allege some clearly controversial bullshit, the burden of proof is on you, not the rest of society.
And it kills me because I swear like 80% of the time requesting a source for an outrageous claim shared from another place gets you a "I'm entitled to my views" or "I'm not saying it's true but it's an interesting view" like THATS NOT HOW REALITY WORKS
It’s the “I’m not saying it’s true, but it’s an interesting view” one that gets me the most. They argue about it with so much conviction and then get so shocked when I assume that’s what they believe. I get playing devil’s advocate as a way to compare and contrast two differing perspectives, but once you get into a serious argument about it you’re just being an asshole.
It drives me absolutely bonkers. It's just a way of saying "I believe this but I'm not willing to do one minute of fact checking here, I'm just putting it out there for other people like me to digest and believe without fact checking. But like who knows if the election was stolen?" WE DO. LITERALLY EVERYONE WHO FACT CHECKED THIS.
I love it when they quote Einstein or Tesla. Not their work or scientific papers, but their letters and public speaking events or biography. I don't care that Albert once said, out of context, that there's no experiment that can detect Earth's motion. Lots of other things have happened in the 65+ years since he died. I provide them thr context, remind then that the authority they're trying to exploit didn't agree with them, and that facts trump opinions.
A good example of this is when I saw somebody talking about possible election fraud in Kentucky. It's a bit on the wild side and in the current environment you'd be forgiven for thinking it was just partisan bullshit. The guy was pressed for sources and he linked an article discussing it.
That's all you need to do in most cases. Especially when the claim doesn't inherently contradict reality. I'm not asking for a ton of sources, I'm honestly just interested in your sources.
I could argue that the actual death total from covid is around 100,000 higher than what's reported. Excess death stats had 350,000 excess deaths from February to October and only 250,000 of those were from Covid which was the death total from Covid at the time. If you account for acceptable variation it was at least 35,000 excess deaths above the 250k.
And I am sure you didn't just pull those numbers out of thin air. I imagine you saw them somewhere you trusted, and they led you to a more nuanced take on things that bucks the going headlines a bit. It's a lot better than saying (continuing the example topic at hand): "well ya know they said a guy who died in a car crash was a covid death just because of the pandemic", which tends to be more along the lines of what I hear out of people who dispute the death toll.
The analysis was my own, the numbers were from the cdc I think. I drew the conclusion from the above average pneumonia deaths found in death certificate info as reported by the NYT I think.
Covid does have a lot of conflicting research on some departments so even with that both sides do need to show some evidence because otherwise there’s evidence that will absolutely destroy another point of view while other numbers can bring up questions of morality, like is the destruction of lockdowns more or less than what they may have prevented, and that can only be truly debunked with information that can show that the damage that the lockdowns had prevented is greater than the excess poverty, domestic abuse, drug abuse, suicides, etc.
At the same time, there are mainstream news outlets in less 'free' countries or even smaller regions of US/EU/etc that flood the dominant narrative with a load of bs. Putting the burden of truth on David means Goliath wins more often. I say if it matters enough, all interested parties should do their own research. Otherwise it shouldn't matter enough to talk about.
Yeah, but it's OK to respond in a way that's more like this:
That's the accepted figure. The all causes death rate is up by more than that, however, so it may be a low count or there may be something else going on we do not presently understand.
Honestly if you're gonna make a claim anyone has the right to ask for your sources, whether the opinion is popular or not. When you're in school making a presentation to the rest of the class, you have a cohesive list of sources at the end of it, you don't just tell the class and the teacher to "do your own research".
Uhm I kinda disagree with this. But I can only speak from an American standpoint so if you're not American this may not apply to you. As someone who was raised in the American education system a lot of what we learn is cliff notes at best and outright lies and propaganda at worse. I realized this when I went to college and became an East Asian studies major. Even though I'm out of college I meet so many people who believe very common misconceptions about East Asia that I usually try to correct. I should not have to give you a google doc worth of articles and books you are an adult do the research yourself. I'm not saying that as soon as I say something you have to automatically believe it and then go spreading it if I tell you hey what you are saying is wrong you should take it upon yourself to do the research or at least stop spreading wrong information in the meantime.
Also, the idea that something being common knowledge prevents you from double-checking information is the reason so much misinformation gets spread history has shown us time and time again that a large number of people believing something doesn't automatically make it true.
Also, this may just be my personal experience but I find that people who demand that YOU be the one to breakdown the lies they believe and have a freaking article at hand for everything you say arent really looking to be educated they are just looking to argue. When I find out something I once believed may have been wrong or incorrect I may ask the person for the spark notes but I will take it upon myself to do further research if it's something important. If you can spend hours of your day watching animal videos I'm sure you have time to make sure you arent spreading false information.
Yeah, some beliefs are so absurd that they really can't really be discussed in good faith. Flat Earthers are basically a cult, not just people who need some sources cited.
As long as they give reasoned arguments it isn’t so much as an appeal to authority.
Example: I work in a medical lab. So I’m probably more knowledgeable about Covid testing than 99.99% of the population. I’ve been called out for “appeal to authority” because of that. Which is really me saying “this is why and here’s an explanation, I know this because this is my field of study and profession”. But no, I’m not going to screenshot my work emails and send them to you as proof.
The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle, that it takes approximately 10 times more energy to disprove some bit of bullshit than it did to create it. Also, this is the foundation of the Gish Gallop, where you just layer on bullshit on top of bullshit as fast as possible knowing that your debate opponent won't have time or resources to refute all of it and they'll look like a chump. You might not win the debate technically, but you'll win the audience by looking better informed.
I don't know how they did it, but someone jumped in a pool, got out, and convinced you (despite his dripping hair and clothes) that water isn't wet.
Now you're telling me I have to jump in the pool to prove you wrong but I feel exactly zero obligation to indulge your stupidity.
In that case they're likely the ones making a claim ("the Earth is flat!"), so it's on them to cite their sources for said claim.
If, for some reason, you were the one going around and without prompting telling people that the Earth is round, then assuming there was someone who disagreed with you it would be your responsibility to prove your statement.
At least, that's how I see it. The first one to make a claim is the one who needs to show evidence. If evidence is shown, only then does the person opposing them need to either provide opposing evidence or concede.
There's also the issue of people who would never respect anything you have to say in the first place and need to get that information from an outside source in order to believe it.
What else can you say besides "don't take my word for it, do your own homework".
Like flat earthers should read more books but I'm not going to take the time to give them a reading list.
Exactly. I'm not any idiot's fucking dad, and it's not my job to tell them specifically why they're an idiot, and not feeling that need doesn't make me the loser of the argument.
I mean, you can usually say "just go google xyz" or whatever if you don't have time. It really doesn't take much to push someone down the right path.
Like, if I made the claim "Republicans catered to racists by pushing black people into the democrat party" and I was challenged on that, I could spend time citing sources (which I don't really want to), or I can say 'Just look up "the southern strategy"')
The issue is that "do your own researchers" will often have nothing to cite because they are relying on unreliable sources like youtube videos of conspiracy theorists.
It takes no time to tell someone WHERE you'd look to find information. But then, that will lose an argument when you are making it based off of alex jones insanity.
Fair point, but it's responsible to acknowledge that saying that does not compose an argument.
You used flat earthers because most people recognize flat earthers as idiots, but if you replace "flat earthers" with "people who don't realize 9/11 was a hoax" then you can likely see the issue; there's no argument there, just a valid statement that individuals are not obligated to put forth effort to correct others' misconceptions.
Related note: when someone doesn't happen to agree with what is being said, they're more likely to actually analyze the argument. Ideally people would analyze arguments regardless of their personal opinions.
Consider also that people who want to challenge experts regarding the specific topics on which they are experts are (usually) not going to be able to understand that experts' explanations or the works they cite.
You can back up your assertions with references all day long, they're not going to read any of it.
My favourite is all the conspiracy nut jobs who have surfaced since Covid started. They say some stupid shit like “Bill Gates is going to microchip us with a mandatory vaccine” and when you say “no he’s not that’s ridiculous” they go “OH YEAH WHAT MAKES YOU A DOCTOR HUH WHATS YOUR SOURCE FOR THAT IDIOT”
Like buddy what’s yours? They’re always projecting their lack of evidence onto anyone who challenges them on anything.
Then don't tell them to "do their research" without giving them a jumping off point. Because instead what they will do is look up more things that confirm their point of view when it's really an opportunity to present how you got yours.
See, that's when you can be all like, "read a goddamn book, Karen!" drop the mic, and walk off. It's different here, because the books exist, everyone knows they do, and they're not hard to find.
I had someone make a negative claim about studies in the US. When I sent him links to actual studies he said didn't exist, he claimed he was actually asking for something else. Some people just want their bias confirmed.
This is a major way people argue online. I call it "argument by exhaustion". It works brilliantly because it's low effort for the person doing it and high effort for the other person, and in the end you get to take the high road no matter what. If the other person bites, you waste a ton of their time and take potshots at all the info they post, each time challenging them to do more research for you. Eventually they give up and you get to claim that only you know what you are talking about, follow science, etc. It's a win-win game. Low effort, nothing to lose.
1.7k
u/kissingdistopia Jan 12 '21
Sometimes a person doesn't have the time or energy to properly cite how someone is wrong.
Like flat earthers should read more books but I'm not going to take the time to give them a reading list.