5 ms·

you should be able to make an argument without resting primarily and directly on other people's words, even if you largely rest on other people's ideas. whether

you should be able to make an argument without resting primarily and directly on other people's words, even if you largely rest on other people's ideas. whether it convinces any particular person is largely out of your control, and shouldn't consume the debate. citations don't change that calculus.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Citations can give data, though. If your ideas are based on more than just your own experience, you need external data.
- clairity 6y ago
  but then you run into the old saw about damn lies and statistics. the argument needs to stand on its own and be taken in good faith, otherwise discussion is futile. (edit: that's not to say provide no links, just that it won't make the argument, per my other comment, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23899088 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23899088, ironically, a citation.)
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    If your argument is based on some fact (e.g. some number being above some threshold), then you absolutely need to back up that number to make the argument resolve into "it's most likely true". If you don't back the number up, then the argument resolves only to "if the data is indeed as argued, then it's most likely true". Keeping beliefs with free variables in them is fine, IMO, as long as you're careful about not accidentally collapsing them into an outcome without having first checked the dependencies.
    - clairity 6y ago
      sure, i'd go one step further and note that there are no absolute certainties, so those free variables always exist, even implicitly. in that vein, most threshold numbers like that should at least come with uncertainty bounds (damn lies and statistics). said another way, outside of math and formal logic, real-world arguments resolve at best to "if the data is indeed as argued, then it's most likely true" (perhaps gödel is relevant here, as @marcinzm referenced downthread[1], another citation!). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23899111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23899111

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Citations can give data, though. If your ideas are based on more than just your own experience, you need external data.

clairity 6y ago
but then you run into the old saw about damn lies and statistics. the argument needs to stand on its own and be taken in good faith, otherwise discussion is futile. (edit: that's not to say provide no links, just that it won't make the argument, per my other comment, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23899088 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23899088, ironically, a citation.)
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  If your argument is based on some fact (e.g. some number being above some threshold), then you absolutely need to back up that number to make the argument resolve into "it's most likely true". If you don't back the number up, then the argument resolves only to "if the data is indeed as argued, then it's most likely true". Keeping beliefs with free variables in them is fine, IMO, as long as you're careful about not accidentally collapsing them into an outcome without having first checked the dependencies.
  - clairity 6y ago
    sure, i'd go one step further and note that there are no absolute certainties, so those free variables always exist, even implicitly. in that vein, most threshold numbers like that should at least come with uncertainty bounds (damn lies and statistics). said another way, outside of math and formal logic, real-world arguments resolve at best to "if the data is indeed as argued, then it's most likely true" (perhaps gödel is relevant here, as @marcinzm referenced downthread[1], another citation!). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23899111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23899111