4 ms·

>"whereas BitwiseFool's post seems to be pure speculation from an outsider's perspective." Yes, that is indeed what it is. I wasn't using weasel words to claim

>"whereas BitwiseFool's post seems to be pure speculation from an outsider's perspective." Yes, that is indeed what it is. I wasn't using weasel words to claim my assertion was based on empirical evidence. I'm just sharing my own perception and I'm a little bothered by the implication that I somehow have to provide citations in order to simply share my perspective.

zasdffaa 5y ago
You don't say if you'd been to that country, or experienced anything relevant that you presented, or anything to explain why you felt this way. As such, you give me nothing to ponder on nor any reason to agree with you (or even disagree). NB: don't take it personally or feel bad, it's just a random interweb guy's disagreement!
lamontcg 5y ago
You are actually explicitly using weasel words. You've made a really strong claim that they have an "incredibly high false positive rate". Then you've just thrown "I sense" in front of it all to make it okay that you're basing that on zero evidence. If you think they've got an "incredibly" high false positive rate you should go do the work to have some kind of factual evidence to base that on.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >"Then you've just thrown "I sense" in front of it all to make it okay that you're basing that on zero evidence." Yes, that's being used as a contextual qualifier. "I sense" = this is my personal opinion, not an assertion of objective fact. >"If you think they've got an "incredibly" high false positive rate you should go do the work to have some kind of factual evidence to base that on." Why? Do you have some evidence this is a bad thing? If you think my use of "I sense" is harmful, you should go do the work and provide some factual evidence to back up your position. I see no citations.
  - zasdffaa 5y ago
    > I see no citations. well, if you believe science has any value then we might agree on this <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method>
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      I was calling out someone criticizing me for not providing citations whilst they also failed to provide citations. So that seems fair game to me. Truth be told, though, I feel like your statement is insinuating that I somehow don't value science. Or, that I've never heard of the scientific method? My main point of frustration is how people are expecting a level of rigor that isn't congruent with the medium. This is a forum, not an academic journal or a policy-making body. I don't know if "reverse gish gallop" has been coined yet, but I sense that when one finds someone they disagree with they can adopt the mindset that everything that person has said must be backed up with a citation. Virtually no one is equipped to perform a dissertation defense on a forum post, so demanding an ever increasing list of evidence is an effective means of discrediting the content without actually engaging with it.
      - lamontcg 5y ago
        "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." People holding opinions without any evidence is a modern plague, you shouldn't be defending it. Just do some work to have a basis for your opinions. It is intellectually lazy not to do so, and you've got the Internet, Google and Wikipedia to help you get started, you don't even need to leave your couch and physically go down to a Library.
        BitwiseFool 5y ago
        >"People holding opinions without any evidence is a modern plague, you shouldn't be defending it." What's your basis for this? Show me your work.
        5y ago

zasdffaa 5y ago

You don't say if you'd been to that country, or experienced anything relevant that you presented, or anything to explain why you felt this way. As such, you give me nothing to ponder on nor any reason to agree with you (or even disagree). NB: don't take it personally or feel bad, it's just a random interweb guy's disagreement!

lamontcg 5y ago

You are actually explicitly using weasel words. You've made a really strong claim that they have an "incredibly high false positive rate". Then you've just thrown "I sense" in front of it all to make it okay that you're basing that on zero evidence. If you think they've got an "incredibly" high false positive rate you should go do the work to have some kind of factual evidence to base that on.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
>"Then you've just thrown "I sense" in front of it all to make it okay that you're basing that on zero evidence." Yes, that's being used as a contextual qualifier. "I sense" = this is my personal opinion, not an assertion of objective fact. >"If you think they've got an "incredibly" high false positive rate you should go do the work to have some kind of factual evidence to base that on." Why? Do you have some evidence this is a bad thing? If you think my use of "I sense" is harmful, you should go do the work and provide some factual evidence to back up your position. I see no citations.
- zasdffaa 5y ago
  > I see no citations. well, if you believe science has any value then we might agree on this <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method>
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    I was calling out someone criticizing me for not providing citations whilst they also failed to provide citations. So that seems fair game to me. Truth be told, though, I feel like your statement is insinuating that I somehow don't value science. Or, that I've never heard of the scientific method? My main point of frustration is how people are expecting a level of rigor that isn't congruent with the medium. This is a forum, not an academic journal or a policy-making body. I don't know if "reverse gish gallop" has been coined yet, but I sense that when one finds someone they disagree with they can adopt the mindset that everything that person has said must be backed up with a citation. Virtually no one is equipped to perform a dissertation defense on a forum post, so demanding an ever increasing list of evidence is an effective means of discrediting the content without actually engaging with it.
    - lamontcg 5y ago
      "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." People holding opinions without any evidence is a modern plague, you shouldn't be defending it. Just do some work to have a basis for your opinions. It is intellectually lazy not to do so, and you've got the Internet, Google and Wikipedia to help you get started, you don't even need to leave your couch and physically go down to a Library.
      - BitwiseFool 5y ago
        >"People holding opinions without any evidence is a modern plague, you shouldn't be defending it." What's your basis for this? Show me your work.
        5y ago