3 ms·

Data or it didn't happen.

by moate 8y ago

eloff 8y ago
If you feel the need for a fact check, do it yourself (and then share it here). It's not the OPs job to lookup facts for you.
- Majestic121 8y ago
  That's not how the burden of proof works. It becomes the OP's job to provide fact when they state things and then are asked to back them up. OP can then choose not to do so, but the one asking for source is not to be blamed here.
  - naravara 8y ago
    Maybe in a debate club. If you're having a casual conversation, though, the emphasis is usually on having agreed upon facts and keep the discussion going. Asking for fact-checks is fine, but it's also exceedingly annoying to try to build up a point while people who don't know what they're talking about disingenuously stand around demanding you validate every single statement or axiom you want to make. That's a common rhetorical style on the internet, and it seems it's very often designed more to exhaust and bore the person being questioned than as a way to improve understanding.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Here is some evidence: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/11/22/american-dietary-preferences-are-split-across-party-lines https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/11/22/american... So. Now that I have shown you the evidence about how people in the city are more likely to have attempted to reduce their meat consumption, are you willing to admit that your initial skepticism was completely and totally wrong? It seemed pretty obvious the the initial conclusion of "people eat less meat in cities" is a true statement. This is due to me have a basic, 101 understanding of how population demographics work, and understanding that people living in a city are more likely to be liberal, and therefore eat less meat. So, do you understand the evidence now, and why you were completely incorrect to give doubt over such an obviously true conclusion, that anyone with any basic knowledge of demographics would understand? Nobody needed to give evidence in the first place for this. It is obviously true.
    - N_trglctc_joe 8y ago
      >Now that I have shown you the evidence about how people in the city are more likely to have attempted to reduce their meat consumption, are you willing to admit that your initial skepticism was completely and totally wrong? Regardless of the accuracy of the original statement, I feel as though "initial skepticism" is ALWAYS the correct response to a claim made on the internet. If anybody is going to claim anything on a site like HN, they shouldn't have to provide evidence because they might not be trustworthy, but rather they should have to provide evidence so their statements can actually have something to stand on.
      - stale2002 8y ago
        > feel as though "initial skepticism" is ALWAYS the correct response Here is the problem with that. I don't think you understand how toxic an eternal skeptic is to a conversation. An eternal skeptic is someone who never makes any positive claims or reasons as for why they disagree with something that someone else said. All they do is repeat, over and over again "ummm, why don't you prove it!". Yeah, no. If you disagree with something, then the honest thing to do is say specifically why you disagree with it, and to make positive claims of your own. If someone just sits back, and refuses to engage with the argument, or give evidence as for why the other person is wrong, then what I usually do is give them the evidence that they asked for, and then make fun of them for not knowing about it in the first place. Because if their initial skepticism was correct in the first place, then the skeptic would have had the guts to explain why they disagree, instead of just being a coward, by only repeating "prove it" a dozen times over. It is ridiculous to expect someone to give a 30 page essay of facts and figures, for every single claim that you make. Instead, the honest thing to do, is to say specifically what you think is incorrect, and give your reasons why, and then the conversation can go from there.
        N_trglctc_joe 8y ago
        There's a difference between a "conversation" and an "internet exchange". In person, I agree completely. Skepticism towards your friends/ family/ acquaintances can easily poison the discourse and ruin relationships. If I have a discussion with a person I know, then I should absolutely give them the benefit of the doubt, and take what they say at face value unless they say something I find literally incredulous. When you're having a discussion online though, it's a completely different story. People say stupid stuff on the internet, and "stupid" is a spectrum that goes all the way to "well-intentioned and seemingly-logical but poorly-researched and false". Online, and on a site such as this which aims for a certain level of discourse, every claim should be backed up. There's always somebody who disagrees that is going to read your comment, and you should give them a reason to reconsider their initial position. This is not an easy thing to do. I believe a lot of stuff without knowing immediately why. This forces me to better account for my ideas, which helps structure my thinking. I'm not a strong enough logician to make infallible arguments, but by trying to convince an eternal skeptic, I only make my own arguments better. [EDIT: I gave you an upvote, since you were in the gray. Some others had downvoted you, but that was undeserved, since I think your disagreement was in good faith. Other people, please don't downvote stale's comment.]
  - eloff 8y ago
    I understand burden of proof, but this is an internet forum. It's nobody's job to present research to backup their claims. It's lazy in this context to post asking someone for proof of their claims. Look it up yourself if you care so much. Or stay quiet.
- moate 8y ago
  This is an extremely odd call. Also, how the hell am I supposed to prove anything here? Where do you even get data like that? That's my whole point, that this seems like some dude on the internet making some wonky proclamation. You want quality discourse? Then the person making such a claim needs to provide some receipts or else everyone else has to work twice as hard as he does to keep up with his bullshit. I'm not making any claims about where vegetarians do or don't live, and it seems pretty bold to throw something out like stating where most people of such a diverse group live.
PorterDuff 8y ago
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I did run into this (which doesn't answer the question, but is interesting) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5622783/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5622783/
kuusisto 8y ago
Total percentages of vegetarian and vegan Americans do appear to be quite low, and they skew more liberal and lower income[1]. I'm not the person you're responding to, and it requires some extrapolation, but the liberal skew does at least suggest that vegetarians may skew "metropolitan" as well. [1]https://news.gallup.com/poll/238328/snapshot-few-americans-vegetarian-vegan.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/238328/snapshot-few-americans-v...
- moate 8y ago
  I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but "skew metropolitan"(your point) and "aren't common outside of certain metro areas"(op point) don't feel like the same rhetorical weight. I mean my thoughts are the whole "Vermont Hippy" seems like a thing, and IDK that Vermont even has a meto area (/s).

Data or it didn't happen.

by moate 8y ago

Data or it didn't happen.

If you feel the need for a fact check, do it yourself (and then share it here). It's not the OPs job to lookup facts for you.

Majestic121 8y ago
That's not how the burden of proof works. It becomes the OP's job to provide fact when they state things and then are asked to back them up. OP can then choose not to do so, but the one asking for source is not to be blamed here.
- naravara 8y ago
  Maybe in a debate club. If you're having a casual conversation, though, the emphasis is usually on having agreed upon facts and keep the discussion going. Asking for fact-checks is fine, but it's also exceedingly annoying to try to build up a point while people who don't know what they're talking about disingenuously stand around demanding you validate every single statement or axiom you want to make. That's a common rhetorical style on the internet, and it seems it's very often designed more to exhaust and bore the person being questioned than as a way to improve understanding.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Here is some evidence: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/11/22/american-dietary-preferences-are-split-across-party-lines https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/11/22/american... So. Now that I have shown you the evidence about how people in the city are more likely to have attempted to reduce their meat consumption, are you willing to admit that your initial skepticism was completely and totally wrong? It seemed pretty obvious the the initial conclusion of "people eat less meat in cities" is a true statement. This is due to me have a basic, 101 understanding of how population demographics work, and understanding that people living in a city are more likely to be liberal, and therefore eat less meat. So, do you understand the evidence now, and why you were completely incorrect to give doubt over such an obviously true conclusion, that anyone with any basic knowledge of demographics would understand? Nobody needed to give evidence in the first place for this. It is obviously true.
  - N_trglctc_joe 8y ago
    >Now that I have shown you the evidence about how people in the city are more likely to have attempted to reduce their meat consumption, are you willing to admit that your initial skepticism was completely and totally wrong? Regardless of the accuracy of the original statement, I feel as though "initial skepticism" is ALWAYS the correct response to a claim made on the internet. If anybody is going to claim anything on a site like HN, they shouldn't have to provide evidence because they might not be trustworthy, but rather they should have to provide evidence so their statements can actually have something to stand on.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      > feel as though "initial skepticism" is ALWAYS the correct response Here is the problem with that. I don't think you understand how toxic an eternal skeptic is to a conversation. An eternal skeptic is someone who never makes any positive claims or reasons as for why they disagree with something that someone else said. All they do is repeat, over and over again "ummm, why don't you prove it!". Yeah, no. If you disagree with something, then the honest thing to do is say specifically why you disagree with it, and to make positive claims of your own. If someone just sits back, and refuses to engage with the argument, or give evidence as for why the other person is wrong, then what I usually do is give them the evidence that they asked for, and then make fun of them for not knowing about it in the first place. Because if their initial skepticism was correct in the first place, then the skeptic would have had the guts to explain why they disagree, instead of just being a coward, by only repeating "prove it" a dozen times over. It is ridiculous to expect someone to give a 30 page essay of facts and figures, for every single claim that you make. Instead, the honest thing to do, is to say specifically what you think is incorrect, and give your reasons why, and then the conversation can go from there.
      - N_trglctc_joe 8y ago
        There's a difference between a "conversation" and an "internet exchange". In person, I agree completely. Skepticism towards your friends/ family/ acquaintances can easily poison the discourse and ruin relationships. If I have a discussion with a person I know, then I should absolutely give them the benefit of the doubt, and take what they say at face value unless they say something I find literally incredulous. When you're having a discussion online though, it's a completely different story. People say stupid stuff on the internet, and "stupid" is a spectrum that goes all the way to "well-intentioned and seemingly-logical but poorly-researched and false". Online, and on a site such as this which aims for a certain level of discourse, every claim should be backed up. There's always somebody who disagrees that is going to read your comment, and you should give them a reason to reconsider their initial position. This is not an easy thing to do. I believe a lot of stuff without knowing immediately why. This forces me to better account for my ideas, which helps structure my thinking. I'm not a strong enough logician to make infallible arguments, but by trying to convince an eternal skeptic, I only make my own arguments better. [EDIT: I gave you an upvote, since you were in the gray. Some others had downvoted you, but that was undeserved, since I think your disagreement was in good faith. Other people, please don't downvote stale's comment.]
- eloff 8y ago
  I understand burden of proof, but this is an internet forum. It's nobody's job to present research to backup their claims. It's lazy in this context to post asking someone for proof of their claims. Look it up yourself if you care so much. Or stay quiet.
moate 8y ago
This is an extremely odd call. Also, how the hell am I supposed to prove anything here? Where do you even get data like that? That's my whole point, that this seems like some dude on the internet making some wonky proclamation. You want quality discourse? Then the person making such a claim needs to provide some receipts or else everyone else has to work twice as hard as he does to keep up with his bullshit. I'm not making any claims about where vegetarians do or don't live, and it seems pretty bold to throw something out like stating where most people of such a diverse group live.

PorterDuff 8y ago

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I did run into this (which doesn't answer the question, but is interesting) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5622783/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5622783/

kuusisto 8y ago

Total percentages of vegetarian and vegan Americans do appear to be quite low, and they skew more liberal and lower income[1]. I'm not the person you're responding to, and it requires some extrapolation, but the liberal skew does at least suggest that vegetarians may skew "metropolitan" as well. [1]https://news.gallup.com/poll/238328/snapshot-few-americans-vegetarian-vegan.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/238328/snapshot-few-americans-v...

moate 8y ago
I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but "skew metropolitan"(your point) and "aren't common outside of certain metro areas"(op point) don't feel like the same rhetorical weight. I mean my thoughts are the whole "Vermont Hippy" seems like a thing, and IDK that Vermont even has a meto area (/s).