4 ms·

Not sure if it’s anyones job to search for evidence for you or the parent.

setr 8y ago
It is, if you have any interest in convincing him otherwise, and successfully holding a conversation. If your goal is to argue aimlessly, and simply make your anti-claim with no new information (thereby convincing no one), then yes, you have no further tasks to be executed. But then you might as well have not spoken in the first place. Otherwise, all you’re claiming afaict is that the posters should argue with themselves — find the counter-evidence to their own claims, which is likely sufficiently convincing that they would not have had any reason to speak in the first place. That is, this idea of “not anyone’s job to search for (counter)evidence” is antagonistic to any form of discussion where parties disagree. If you want to make the opposing claim successfully, its quite useful to have evidence to support it (it’s not their job to find it for you... its not anyone’s job to do anything in an HN thread.)
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  The "citation needed" type of response is also antagonistic in what is a discussion site rather than an academic paper.
  - kartickv 8y ago
    I see where you're coming from, but it's good to impose the burden of proof on the person making the claim. If the person making the claim can't be bothered to dig up any supporting information, neither can others. It keeps the quality of discussion higher than otherwise. One one or two occasions, when I was about to post something, I looked for evidence, and realised I was mistaken, and didn't mislead others.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      You're making pretty strong claims but haven't supported a single one of them.
  - setr 8y ago
    Sort of; if the other party is making clear what evidence he’s looking for to disprove his thinking, I think its fair — especially when his ideas run counter to the norm (which naturally people put a lot of belief in, with nothing to support it, because everyone else believes in it). Ofc, if he just counters everything with citation needed, its pointless. But in this case, evidence was requested for a particular idea, and the response was completely tangential to the request. And it wasn’t really an issue of citation needed, I think, so much as just anything to support the idea that colleges actually offer non-job value (and that they offer courses across multiple fields is insufficient, which is true, its a thing they’re doing but says nothing about effectiveness). Ofc, the difference is in the intent. And the problem I have with “its not my job” is the intent; it’s a belief/defense whose primary purpose/outcome is to kill communication, and I very much like communicating

setr 8y ago

It is, if you have any interest in convincing him otherwise, and successfully holding a conversation. If your goal is to argue aimlessly, and simply make your anti-claim with no new information (thereby convincing no one), then yes, you have no further tasks to be executed. But then you might as well have not spoken in the first place. Otherwise, all you’re claiming afaict is that the posters should argue with themselves — find the counter-evidence to their own claims, which is likely sufficiently convincing that they would not have had any reason to speak in the first place. That is, this idea of “not anyone’s job to search for (counter)evidence” is antagonistic to any form of discussion where parties disagree. If you want to make the opposing claim successfully, its quite useful to have evidence to support it (it’s not their job to find it for you... its not anyone’s job to do anything in an HN thread.)

tonyedgecombe 8y ago
The "citation needed" type of response is also antagonistic in what is a discussion site rather than an academic paper.
- kartickv 8y ago
  I see where you're coming from, but it's good to impose the burden of proof on the person making the claim. If the person making the claim can't be bothered to dig up any supporting information, neither can others. It keeps the quality of discussion higher than otherwise. One one or two occasions, when I was about to post something, I looked for evidence, and realised I was mistaken, and didn't mislead others.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    You're making pretty strong claims but haven't supported a single one of them.
- setr 8y ago
  Sort of; if the other party is making clear what evidence he’s looking for to disprove his thinking, I think its fair — especially when his ideas run counter to the norm (which naturally people put a lot of belief in, with nothing to support it, because everyone else believes in it). Ofc, if he just counters everything with citation needed, its pointless. But in this case, evidence was requested for a particular idea, and the response was completely tangential to the request. And it wasn’t really an issue of citation needed, I think, so much as just anything to support the idea that colleges actually offer non-job value (and that they offer courses across multiple fields is insufficient, which is true, its a thing they’re doing but says nothing about effectiveness). Ofc, the difference is in the intent. And the problem I have with “its not my job” is the intent; it’s a belief/defense whose primary purpose/outcome is to kill communication, and I very much like communicating