4 ms·

It really depends. If you’re just trying to DDoS the other person because, unless they exert superhuman effort to track down evidence for claims you believe are

by mlthoughts2018 6y ago

It really depends. If you’re just trying to DDoS the other person because, unless they exert superhuman effort to track down evidence for claims you believe are extraordinary, you will dismiss their point unduly. Why can’t you do the research for their argument, for example? It’s not their obligation to do so. Further if you self-reflect and still really believe their point is incredulous without bolstering evidence, why not just say nothing? What possible value is it to add a sniping comment like “uhm, citation needed”? It’s plainly not contributing anything, solely looking for the evidence challenge itself to bring some kind of undercutting rhetorical flair, which is frankly worse than making uncorroborated, but civil, claims (because others can fact check them for themselves).

teh_klev 6y ago
>It’s not their obligation to do so. I respectfully disagree. If you're making claims, especially in a discussion that is perhaps contentious or controversial, it is absolutely your responsibility to back up these claims. We shouldn't have to do all the work to decide if true or to begin debunking them, especially if the evidence for your claims come from unreliable and shady sources. If the response is "just google it", or "the facts are out there" then I'm flipping the bozo-bit on you.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree. Nobody owes you any sources. If you choose to dismiss what someone else says (instead of researching it) that is totally fine, but they don’t owe you that. If you respond to them by saying “citation needed” you’re not helping. Number one, your claim that a citation is needed might be wrong - they might not actually need to provide sources because their point is extremely widely proved already or is extremely easy to verify. Just because you think the claim needs evidence doesn’t make it so. Number two, requesting a citation doesn’t refute what the other person said. It might be true. But because humans use various heuristics that are still rooted in tribal in-group or out-group thinking, it will be perceived like a “win” or like you “got them” and people will keep a mental tally, so the rhetorical effect actually worsens the quality of discourse. When I see someone saying “citation needed” it immediately tells me (a) they are too lazy to research it for themselves, (b) they are too lazy to steelman the argument and engage it assuming it’s valid, (c) they are too lazy to produce their own counter-argument and (d) they want “credit” for “winning” the other side of the argument, but without actually contributing anything that answers whether the claim is true. Of course, people posting tons of claims that don’t have evidence also come off badly - but the right thing to do is either ignore them, steelman their argument or provide a counter-argument. Pedantically demanding evidence is worse, even assuming that strong claims should have strong evidence. It harms discourse more.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    > When I see someone saying “citation needed” it immediately tells me (a) they are too lazy to research it for themselves, (b) they are too lazy to steelman the argument and engage it assuming it’s valid, (c) they are too lazy to produce their own counter-argument and (d) they want “credit” for “winning” the other side of the argument, but without actually contributing anything that answers whether the claim is true. Wait, so at no point in time does it go through your mind that the second person is claiming that the original person is making a descriptive claim about the world that is false, and requesting they put up (evidence) or shut up (i.e. what [citation needed] is short for)? > [...]even assuming that strong claims should have strong evidence. What's an example of a strong empirical claim that wouldn't have strong evidence? (If you're just talking about non-empirical claims, fair enough)
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      > “ Wait, so at no point in time does it go through your mind that the second person is claiming that the original person is making a descriptive claim about the world that is false, and requesting they put up (evidence) or shut up” You are correct. A “citation needed” comment absolutely does not lead me to think that. The original comment that a “citation needed” comment is replying to might make me think that because of omission of evidence, but any comment that “calls them out” on omission of evidence would only reveal laziness and counter-productive argumentativeness. I would never see a “citation needed” comment and think, “yeah, you’re right, a citation is needed.” I might separately, on my own, and privately come to that conclusion, but never as a result of a “citation needed” comment. I believe you are confused. - Do strong claims need strong evidence? Yes, they do. - Is it useful or rhetorically acceptable to point out omission of evidence with a “citation needed” comment? No, it’s not, and it has nothing to do with strong claims needing evidence.
      - bawolff 6y ago
        So in essence, you don't like citation needed comments because you believe (a priori) that anyone making one is acting in bad faith and their comments cannot be taken at face value? Or is it just that you believe attacking the veracity of a premise is not a valid counter argument? Isn't one of the guidelines of this site "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."?

teh_klev 6y ago

>It’s not their obligation to do so. I respectfully disagree. If you're making claims, especially in a discussion that is perhaps contentious or controversial, it is absolutely your responsibility to back up these claims. We shouldn't have to do all the work to decide if true or to begin debunking them, especially if the evidence for your claims come from unreliable and shady sources. If the response is "just google it", or "the facts are out there" then I'm flipping the bozo-bit on you.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree. Nobody owes you any sources. If you choose to dismiss what someone else says (instead of researching it) that is totally fine, but they don’t owe you that. If you respond to them by saying “citation needed” you’re not helping. Number one, your claim that a citation is needed might be wrong - they might not actually need to provide sources because their point is extremely widely proved already or is extremely easy to verify. Just because you think the claim needs evidence doesn’t make it so. Number two, requesting a citation doesn’t refute what the other person said. It might be true. But because humans use various heuristics that are still rooted in tribal in-group or out-group thinking, it will be perceived like a “win” or like you “got them” and people will keep a mental tally, so the rhetorical effect actually worsens the quality of discourse. When I see someone saying “citation needed” it immediately tells me (a) they are too lazy to research it for themselves, (b) they are too lazy to steelman the argument and engage it assuming it’s valid, (c) they are too lazy to produce their own counter-argument and (d) they want “credit” for “winning” the other side of the argument, but without actually contributing anything that answers whether the claim is true. Of course, people posting tons of claims that don’t have evidence also come off badly - but the right thing to do is either ignore them, steelman their argument or provide a counter-argument. Pedantically demanding evidence is worse, even assuming that strong claims should have strong evidence. It harms discourse more.
- bawolff 6y ago
  > When I see someone saying “citation needed” it immediately tells me (a) they are too lazy to research it for themselves, (b) they are too lazy to steelman the argument and engage it assuming it’s valid, (c) they are too lazy to produce their own counter-argument and (d) they want “credit” for “winning” the other side of the argument, but without actually contributing anything that answers whether the claim is true. Wait, so at no point in time does it go through your mind that the second person is claiming that the original person is making a descriptive claim about the world that is false, and requesting they put up (evidence) or shut up (i.e. what [citation needed] is short for)? > [...]even assuming that strong claims should have strong evidence. What's an example of a strong empirical claim that wouldn't have strong evidence? (If you're just talking about non-empirical claims, fair enough)
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    > “ Wait, so at no point in time does it go through your mind that the second person is claiming that the original person is making a descriptive claim about the world that is false, and requesting they put up (evidence) or shut up” You are correct. A “citation needed” comment absolutely does not lead me to think that. The original comment that a “citation needed” comment is replying to might make me think that because of omission of evidence, but any comment that “calls them out” on omission of evidence would only reveal laziness and counter-productive argumentativeness. I would never see a “citation needed” comment and think, “yeah, you’re right, a citation is needed.” I might separately, on my own, and privately come to that conclusion, but never as a result of a “citation needed” comment. I believe you are confused. - Do strong claims need strong evidence? Yes, they do. - Is it useful or rhetorically acceptable to point out omission of evidence with a “citation needed” comment? No, it’s not, and it has nothing to do with strong claims needing evidence.
    - bawolff 6y ago
      So in essence, you don't like citation needed comments because you believe (a priori) that anyone making one is acting in bad faith and their comments cannot be taken at face value? Or is it just that you believe attacking the veracity of a premise is not a valid counter argument? Isn't one of the guidelines of this site "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."?