4 ms·

Except, of course, people have actually heard of Wayne Gretzky, and many people not hockey fans even know what he looks like (or did during his career). It's n

Except, of course, people have actually heard of Wayne Gretzky, and many people not hockey fans even know what he looks like (or did during his career). It's not like some random, sketchy Canadian guy shows up, saying he's not being treated as befits a great hockey player, and when people go, "Uh, are you a great hockey player? I've never heard of you,..", in response, a bunch of randos appear on cure to say, "What?! Prove any better hockey player exists than John Smith in the history of the game in any league!" Or, put another way, a bunch of angry randos doesn't prove anything. You get those turning up for anything online, from raw food diets to hexagonal water.

JamesBarney 7y ago
The difference being hockey is a giant sport, and supplement research is a very niche hobby. I'm not trying to convince you supplements aren't bogus or even that examine is a great resource. Just that the claim "there exists a better supplement site than examine.com" is a false one. Let me start with why do you believe this claim to be true or at least more likely than the opposing claim.
- Semiapies 7y ago
  "The difference being hockey is a giant sport..." Your choice of metaphor. But you're clearly not getting the point; what you imagine is "obvious" about your rightness really isn't. "Just that the claim 'there exists a better supplement site than examine.com'..." This is not a point I've seen anyone here arguing. It's definitely not a point I'm arguing. However, it's clearly a point you and the otherthe boosters of this site want to argue against - that's what's called a strawmen argument. It's you boosters of this site who have been making the claim - without offering a bit of evidence or support - that this is the single best supplement site, that it's great and useful, etc. Not even not-terribly-convincing evidence, not even flimsy evidence, no evidence at all. Just your curiously consistent demands that we prove you wrong It doesn't work that way. If you make a claim, then you back it up. If you try to punt the burden of proof to the people questioning you, it's obvious what you're doing. Hell, for all I know, no good supplement sites actually exist and every single one on the subject is a crap site that deserves search blacklisting. So, it would be a complete snipe hunt to try to find a "better" site than any random worthless site. This would not prove what you imagine it proves.
  - JamesBarney 7y ago
    So what are you arguing if not that examine isn't the best supplement site?
    - Semiapies 7y ago
      You and others here have multiple replies from multiple people, including myself, explaining this in detail. I'm beyond even trying to think that you're posting in good faith.
      - JamesBarney 7y ago
        I went through your responses and none that I saw made any argument besides that the "boosters" provided no evidence. When in fact the thread is littered with people mentioning the quality of the site. The cited sources, the strong background of the founding members, recommendations from scientists, the New York times relying on their expertise. So I think you might be mistaken about making a clear argument against examine. Most of the arguments you've made have been about what the appropriate burden of proof in an internet argument. But I wasn't able to find where you shed light on what your counter argument is or engage with any of the arguments the "boosters" have made. Some people in the thread have engaged with the evidence arguing they aren't an authoritative source but most have them had misconceptions that were corrected. The quality is high by any standards but particularly stands out relative to other supplement which is littered with fraud and ignorance.
  - data_required 7y ago
    "Not even not-terribly-convincing evidence, not even flimsy evidence, no evidence at all." I've listed quite a bit of things I would consider to be strong evidence in favor of Examine being a high-quality supplements site deserving of getting high ranks in Google supplement search results. So have numerous other commenters in this comments section. The Examine employee, AhmedF, has as well. So I'm curious- what would qualify as "evidence" for you? And why do none of the other points mentioned qualify as "evidence"? I'm pretty baffled at this point as to what it would take. You ask for evidence, I think remarkably strong evidence has been provided by me and numerous others, and then you just seem to ignore it? BTW, I think our discussion got mentioned on the Nootropics subreddit comments thread about this topic. (Examine's blog post is one of the top 10 posts of all time on that subreddit. People with a big interest in supplements consider this to be a BIG deal). Our discussion was referenced here- https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/cpg1ha/over_the_past_25_years_google_has_decreased/ewrskv6/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/cpg1ha/over_the... "God those comments represent the worst of hacker news. There is a giant argument about whether examine.com is the best website on supplements. With anyone who's ever looked at a supplement site arguing it's examine.com and people who've never looked at a supplement site in their life arguing that surely a better one must exist."

JamesBarney 7y ago

The difference being hockey is a giant sport, and supplement research is a very niche hobby. I'm not trying to convince you supplements aren't bogus or even that examine is a great resource. Just that the claim "there exists a better supplement site than examine.com" is a false one. Let me start with why do you believe this claim to be true or at least more likely than the opposing claim.

Semiapies 7y ago
"The difference being hockey is a giant sport..." Your choice of metaphor. But you're clearly not getting the point; what you imagine is "obvious" about your rightness really isn't. "Just that the claim 'there exists a better supplement site than examine.com'..." This is not a point I've seen anyone here arguing. It's definitely not a point I'm arguing. However, it's clearly a point you and the otherthe boosters of this site want to argue against - that's what's called a strawmen argument. It's you boosters of this site who have been making the claim - without offering a bit of evidence or support - that this is the single best supplement site, that it's great and useful, etc. Not even not-terribly-convincing evidence, not even flimsy evidence, no evidence at all. Just your curiously consistent demands that we prove you wrong It doesn't work that way. If you make a claim, then you back it up. If you try to punt the burden of proof to the people questioning you, it's obvious what you're doing. Hell, for all I know, no good supplement sites actually exist and every single one on the subject is a crap site that deserves search blacklisting. So, it would be a complete snipe hunt to try to find a "better" site than any random worthless site. This would not prove what you imagine it proves.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  So what are you arguing if not that examine isn't the best supplement site?
  - Semiapies 7y ago
    You and others here have multiple replies from multiple people, including myself, explaining this in detail. I'm beyond even trying to think that you're posting in good faith.
    - JamesBarney 7y ago
      I went through your responses and none that I saw made any argument besides that the "boosters" provided no evidence. When in fact the thread is littered with people mentioning the quality of the site. The cited sources, the strong background of the founding members, recommendations from scientists, the New York times relying on their expertise. So I think you might be mistaken about making a clear argument against examine. Most of the arguments you've made have been about what the appropriate burden of proof in an internet argument. But I wasn't able to find where you shed light on what your counter argument is or engage with any of the arguments the "boosters" have made. Some people in the thread have engaged with the evidence arguing they aren't an authoritative source but most have them had misconceptions that were corrected. The quality is high by any standards but particularly stands out relative to other supplement which is littered with fraud and ignorance.
- data_required 7y ago
  "Not even not-terribly-convincing evidence, not even flimsy evidence, no evidence at all." I've listed quite a bit of things I would consider to be strong evidence in favor of Examine being a high-quality supplements site deserving of getting high ranks in Google supplement search results. So have numerous other commenters in this comments section. The Examine employee, AhmedF, has as well. So I'm curious- what would qualify as "evidence" for you? And why do none of the other points mentioned qualify as "evidence"? I'm pretty baffled at this point as to what it would take. You ask for evidence, I think remarkably strong evidence has been provided by me and numerous others, and then you just seem to ignore it? BTW, I think our discussion got mentioned on the Nootropics subreddit comments thread about this topic. (Examine's blog post is one of the top 10 posts of all time on that subreddit. People with a big interest in supplements consider this to be a BIG deal). Our discussion was referenced here- https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/cpg1ha/over_the_past_25_years_google_has_decreased/ewrskv6/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/cpg1ha/over_the... "God those comments represent the worst of hacker news. There is a giant argument about whether examine.com is the best website on supplements. With anyone who's ever looked at a supplement site arguing it's examine.com and people who've never looked at a supplement site in their life arguing that surely a better one must exist."