If you make a statement of fact then you need to be able to back it up with objective facts.
If you can’t, then it’s called opinion
And a second asbsolutelyfuckingnot. Why?
Because there is a torrent of utter bullshit posted online every day. The burden to prove it’s bullshit should not be placed on the recipient of the information. Why, again? Because it’s easy to flood everything with bullshit and takes effort to disprove. You cannot allow people to make statements without facing the burden of proving their position, otherwise nobody is going to be checking anything and the bullshitters win.
My brother frequently demands a source when I tell an anecdote, then misuses Hitchen’s Razor to accuse me of making the anecdote up. This would be understandable if it was as a pics or it didn’t happen response to something outlandish, but it’s usually for something entirely mundane that was barely interesting enough to mention in the first place.
The key phrase for primary sources is “trust, but verify”. That means listening to the primary source, and then do the legwork yourself to verify. Verify doesn’t mean asking the primary source for a source, it means figuring it out for yourself. A claim like “they’re eating the pets” gets readily debunked as soon as you start looking for evidence.
That approach may work for journalism and such, with a single person collecting primary sources and verifying them before writing an article. However, it does not work on the internet.
Instead of one person verifying the claim and adding further sources in an article, every single reader would have to do it. And anyone using the internet would have to do so hundreds of times every day. Nobody does that. It only makes sense to shift the burden of further proof onto the primary source or disregard it.
You’re allowed to post what you find. The most effective method for cutting through the mis-/dis-info is to both respond directly with evidence, and then talk past it as a cool thing you just learned in a new post
It is if I can trust you. The reality is i can’t. So if you have claims and its important for you to ensure i understand or accept your input then you better be able to back it up or I won’t.
If you were ‘there’ then prove that.
There are a lot of scenarios where it is just not important to have acceptance or agreement from the other party so it’s not like this is a universal rule. But if you have to rely on ‘trust me’ then you have to accept that some people simply wont.
Look there are some wild claims that deserve a request for sources.
Outside of that I would think you can check it out on your own if you don’t already know. How is it that this “do your research” crowd doesn’t know how to do their own research?
I dont think asking for sources is ever a bad thing. Even for basic information. We should not defer to ‘trust me bro’ or ‘everyone already knows’
Thing is anyone posting stuff like this DGAF about any sources.
I get where you’re coming from, but unless you’re saying “Source?” just to troll them back there isn’t any real expectation of a good faith response.
You don’t need to provide sources for common knowledge, you need to provide sources to disprove it.
No.
If you make a statement of fact then you need to be able to back it up with objective facts.
If you can’t, then it’s called opinion
And a second asbsolutelyfuckingnot. Why?
Because there is a torrent of utter bullshit posted online every day. The burden to prove it’s bullshit should not be placed on the recipient of the information. Why, again? Because it’s easy to flood everything with bullshit and takes effort to disprove. You cannot allow people to make statements without facing the burden of proving their position, otherwise nobody is going to be checking anything and the bullshitters win.
This guy demands peer reviewed studies for the color of the sky.
You get downvoted but asking for w written source over anecdotal testimony is often good practice. I don’t think so in this particular case.
For better and worse, we get 99% of our reality from each other and trust is assumed. That’s just how society works and it ain’t gonna change.
Yes, it’s far from sane. Yes, social media has turned it up to 11.
Don’t like it? Want “truth”? I dunno.
Primary sources are a thing my friend. “I was there” is valid.
My brother frequently demands a source when I tell an anecdote, then misuses Hitchen’s Razor to accuse me of making the anecdote up. This would be understandable if it was as a pics or it didn’t happen response to something outlandish, but it’s usually for something entirely mundane that was barely interesting enough to mention in the first place.
It’s just too easy to lie about them. They allegedly had primary sources for “They are eating the dogs”.
Trusting your common sense to filter these just doesn’t work, asking for a better source is never wrong.
Ok but like a lot of people saw the snow compared to the dog thing which ended up not actually having any good primary source
The key phrase for primary sources is “trust, but verify”. That means listening to the primary source, and then do the legwork yourself to verify. Verify doesn’t mean asking the primary source for a source, it means figuring it out for yourself. A claim like “they’re eating the pets” gets readily debunked as soon as you start looking for evidence.
That approach may work for journalism and such, with a single person collecting primary sources and verifying them before writing an article. However, it does not work on the internet.
Instead of one person verifying the claim and adding further sources in an article, every single reader would have to do it. And anyone using the internet would have to do so hundreds of times every day. Nobody does that. It only makes sense to shift the burden of further proof onto the primary source or disregard it.
You’re allowed to post what you find. The most effective method for cutting through the mis-/dis-info is to both respond directly with evidence, and then talk past it as a cool thing you just learned in a new post
But you could just say that. I doubt it’s hard to find a source to back up how much it snowed.
It is if I can trust you. The reality is i can’t. So if you have claims and its important for you to ensure i understand or accept your input then you better be able to back it up or I won’t.
If you were ‘there’ then prove that.
There are a lot of scenarios where it is just not important to have acceptance or agreement from the other party so it’s not like this is a universal rule. But if you have to rely on ‘trust me’ then you have to accept that some people simply wont.
I definitely get your point and I agree, but there is a certain type of toxic person that does this in bad faith. It’s called sealioning.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Yeah thats fair. Thats when Id decide that their acceptance is no longer important and no amount of evidence will matter anyways.
SOURCE?
This is an opinion
Look there are some wild claims that deserve a request for sources.
Outside of that I would think you can check it out on your own if you don’t already know. How is it that this “do your research” crowd doesn’t know how to do their own research?
The scenario here is Person A makes claim. Person B wants a source.
If you want Person B to accept your claim you have to back it up. If you dont care then the point is moot. Its that easy.
Dont lump me into random crowds. Im just saying that this meme is for some reason promoting the ‘trust me bro’ stance and I dont like that.
Trust me bro, there used to be snow in the winter.
yeah the meme sets up a ridiculous scenario but does promote the ‘trust me bro’ stance.
It’s painful that this is downvoted. If you can’t cite facts, you’re as dumb as Trump supporters, you just happen to be on the other side…