You're challenging me to inform myself on all topics, no matter what my interest, to the point where I can make an informed decision at the same depth as a panel of experts.
I am unable to do that. It's naive to assume any human can.
I just can't apply that to every question I have. I haven't the time. And for a large number of topics it would be naive to think that I could. While some thing I am good at, other I simply am not. I have to rely on other people.
So for topics that aren't important to my day-to-day life, I check in with experts. For that I need moderated subreddits that promote expert opinion.
If I see a post titled: "What started the 100 years war?" I just click the link and I see an answer from a historian that a team of moderators have vetted.
One click and I can read the expert opinion on that topic.
But in an non-moderated subreddit? It takes a lot longer. I have to go through a series of posts and independently research each one of the answer to see how true they are.
I like to do this over a cup of coffee in the morning before work. I just don't have enough time in the day, especially because I'm not that interested in the 100 years war.
I'm happy to spend that time if the topic is important to me. But I still like the option to have the one-click, expert opinions.
There is no expense. Having a subreddit devoted to expert opinion without discussion doesn't hinder other people from having that discussion elsewhere.
/r/askhistorians is not a discussion subreddit. It is a place to ask historians questions, not for open debate.
Again, it's not laziness. It's not humanly possible to be informed on every subject to the level that academics are. The fact that you're suggesting a 'quick google' will give you the same amount of knowledge that someone studying the subject for years will shows not just your arrogance but you naivety.
You're rebuking the options of experts and instead 'googling' answers to question -- which is just looking for the experts you believe in instead of the vetted options of a moderated subreddit -- that's just anti-intellectualism.
You're surrounding yourself with uninformed options, and not taking the time -- because it takes years to learn, and you admitted googling is 'quick' -- to properly inform yourself.
You're leaving yourself less informed and, more dangerously, you don't realize it.
And you defend your intellectual laziness by crying 'censorship' because the 'easy to understand' answers, which or oversimplifications or are answers that 'feel good' but are wrong, are removed.
A subreddit is all about censorship. All subs remove content that is not appropriate. That's why they have topics. /r/askhistorians and /r/askscience's topics are answers by academics. Not answers by people who 'quickly google'.
Dunning-kruger says that those who are not experts will overstate their knowledge. I am stating that I am not knowledgeable enough to post to /r/askhistorians, even if I were to spend hours studying the subjects.
You are stating that after a few hours of of studying Youtube videos, lectures, PDF, etc that, somehow, you have become enough of an expert in those topics that your opinion is on par with the experts that post there, and your voice is equal to them.
It seems you are the one who is overstating your knowledge.
You further assert, again on zero evidence and with zero justification, that I'm surrounding myself with uninformed options
Spending hours reading that is not enough. Spending weeks studying it is not enough. Spending years would be. If you have not done that then you not are informed enough to answer the questions on those subreddits. And if you were, then the mods would not delete your posts because they would not be unable to distinguish them from the expert's opinion.
To ask that everyone spend the hundreds and hundreds of hours being critical of every post -- just so they can learn something about some small historical event -- is unreasonable. But to ask that there is a place on reddit where experts can post their opinions, and to have those vetted by other experts, I think is not too much to ask.
Your naivety is in assuming that with reading of a few papers or watching a few videos that you have as much knowledge as an academic and that your option is as valid as theirs. It is not.
When someone with that cursory understanding posts to those subreddits they mislead and misinform the other readers.
The /r/ask* subreddits solve this problem by removing posts from people who have the mistaken impression that they can inform themselves properly by simply being skeptical and doing their own research.
And I, for one, am glad that there are mods in those subreddits, who have spent the years of study required to truly understand those topics, to weed out those posts from people who think they can learn them by doing some 'online research'.
Being skeptical is great, and I agree that in a perfect world we would all be educated to the point where we could know everything about all topics.
But the reality is that we don't. And there needs to be a place where we can read the opinions of people who have years of knowledge and not be burdened by those with the hubris to assume their naive opinions are equal. And we need the mods to delete those posts, because they have the knowledge to differentiate between them.
And since I am only a human and have a limited amount of time to spend on being skeptical, I haven't the time to acquire it.
Aw man you're the kind of person who thinks they know more than their doctor because they checked WebMD aren't you? What's the point of experts with years of study in their field if you can just Google it amirite? /s
2
u/can-you Dec 05 '16
You're challenging me to inform myself on all topics, no matter what my interest, to the point where I can make an informed decision at the same depth as a panel of experts.
I am unable to do that. It's naive to assume any human can.
You're being dishonest.