3 ms·

> a Reddit comment, especially one that doesn't cite any sources? That Reddit comment is literally saying "[the claim that beer was safer than water] cannot be

> a Reddit comment, especially one that doesn't cite any sources? That Reddit comment is literally saying "[the claim that beer was safer than water] cannot be substantiated with primary sources". You're complaining that somebody isn't citing sources when all they are saying is that there is a lack of evidence that the claim is true. You're placing the burden of proof in the wrong place.

lostboys67 10y ago
the fact that teetotal sailors where considered a higher insurance risk which can be backed up with sources
mulmen 10y ago
The GP claim is that "beer as a safe alternative to water" is likely a myth. In order to back this up they linked to a comment that does nothing to prove this claim. Sure, the Reddit comment says there is no primary source evidence to back up the claim that beer was used as a safe alternative to water but that does not make it a source to claim that beer was not used as a safe alternative to water. Furthermore, the Reddit post makes unsubstantiated claims, such as "failing many logic tests" without naming the logic tests themselves. The entire second paragraph is predicated on the assumption that homesteads used only clean water sources without polluting them. How did they handle waste? Did they know how far from water sources to deposit their waste? The comment doesn't say. Indeed the burden of proof is on the accuser and in this case the GP is the accuser. Reddit comments do not meet my standard for proof.
- emiliobumachar 10y ago
  I think what we're all trying to say is, could you provide any evidence for the "beer as a safe alternative to water" theory? If we place the burden of proof on the skeptical "accuser", that could redeem almost any theory about history, including the more colorful ones involving aliens.
  - mulmen 10y ago
    Someone on HN made a claim that the idea of beer as a clean drinking source was a myth and cited a Reddit comment as a source. This is unacceptable to me because that Reddit comment cites no further sources and raises other concerns. I would apply the same rigor to a claim that beer was used as an alternate drinking supply. Internet comments are just that, commentary. The same as the opinion piece in a newspaper. If they are to be used as fact they must meet a much higher standard or be disregarded. It is not acceptable to cite one opinion as proof of another.
- bigbugbag 10y ago
  Well the article does not provide any source to its claims, does not even attempt to prove anything, yet you accept USA today repeating something as a proof that "beer was a safe alternative to water". Is it even as established fact that water was unsafe to drink ? if so where ? when ? Unsafe water in large overcrowded cities such 19th century London is proven but an exception not the general situation for the whole world over time.
  - mulmen 10y ago
    I make no claim to the validity of the USA Today article. Unsubstantiated claims should not be countered with other unsubstantiated claims. I am simply calling for a higher level of proof.

lostboys67 10y ago

the fact that teetotal sailors where considered a higher insurance risk which can be backed up with sources

mulmen 10y ago

The GP claim is that "beer as a safe alternative to water" is likely a myth. In order to back this up they linked to a comment that does nothing to prove this claim. Sure, the Reddit comment says there is no primary source evidence to back up the claim that beer was used as a safe alternative to water but that does not make it a source to claim that beer was not used as a safe alternative to water. Furthermore, the Reddit post makes unsubstantiated claims, such as "failing many logic tests" without naming the logic tests themselves. The entire second paragraph is predicated on the assumption that homesteads used only clean water sources without polluting them. How did they handle waste? Did they know how far from water sources to deposit their waste? The comment doesn't say. Indeed the burden of proof is on the accuser and in this case the GP is the accuser. Reddit comments do not meet my standard for proof.

emiliobumachar 10y ago
I think what we're all trying to say is, could you provide any evidence for the "beer as a safe alternative to water" theory? If we place the burden of proof on the skeptical "accuser", that could redeem almost any theory about history, including the more colorful ones involving aliens.
- mulmen 10y ago
  Someone on HN made a claim that the idea of beer as a clean drinking source was a myth and cited a Reddit comment as a source. This is unacceptable to me because that Reddit comment cites no further sources and raises other concerns. I would apply the same rigor to a claim that beer was used as an alternate drinking supply. Internet comments are just that, commentary. The same as the opinion piece in a newspaper. If they are to be used as fact they must meet a much higher standard or be disregarded. It is not acceptable to cite one opinion as proof of another.
bigbugbag 10y ago
Well the article does not provide any source to its claims, does not even attempt to prove anything, yet you accept USA today repeating something as a proof that "beer was a safe alternative to water". Is it even as established fact that water was unsafe to drink ? if so where ? when ? Unsafe water in large overcrowded cities such 19th century London is proven but an exception not the general situation for the whole world over time.
- mulmen 10y ago
  I make no claim to the validity of the USA Today article. Unsubstantiated claims should not be countered with other unsubstantiated claims. I am simply calling for a higher level of proof.