3 ms·

Its fine to ask for sources. It's also fine to not give sources when relaying information in freeform comments. It's not fine to ask for sources in the tone you

by jatora 7mo ago

Its fine to ask for sources. It's also fine to not give sources when relaying information in freeform comments. It's not fine to ask for sources in the tone you are using though, as though you are annoyed and simply expect sources to always be included with claims. There are better ways of accomplishing your goals.

Betelbuddy 7mo ago
Someone drops very specific percentages about diagnostic accuracy....numbers that, if true, have serious implications for patient outcomes, and your concern is that I did not ask nicely enough for a source? I could not think of a more HN typical response... I did not even call the claim false, even if it almost deserve it...I said, essentially ...let's see the references so we can treat this as fact rather than opinion. What you did is write a longer and more prescriptive comment about my tone than anything anyone has written about the actual substance :-)). You tone policed a one line request for evidence while giving a complete pass to unsourced medical statistics presented as fact. If we are ranking things that erode discourse quality, I would say you are higher on the list.
- jatora 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Betelbuddy 7mo ago
    Three comments in... and you still have not said a single word about whether radiologists actually catch 35% of diagnoses. But you have found time to call me passive aggressive, entitled, lazy, and immature. For one sentence. Asking for a source... You are now, multiple comments deep, doing the thing you accuse me of...being more invested in tone than substance. The irony is genuinely impressive at this point.
    - storus 7mo ago
      If you look at early stage diseases it's probably even way less than 35%...
      - deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
    - jatora 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      - sethammons 7mo ago
        The lack of self awareness you display is impressive. Grade A troll or bot. As someone who sometimes misses things, I find it mildly interesting when someone is so confidently not on the same page as others. Good luck.
        jatora 7mo ago
        Very unspecific. Zero value comment
  - Forgeties79 7mo ago
    > Calm down You had a point until you did that.
    - jatora 7mo ago
      Nah there's no reason to just accept someone's outbursts and not call them out for unsolicited high emotion lol
      - Forgeties79 7mo ago
        You can’t complain about somebody’s tone/call them passive aggressive and then use intentionally inflammatory language like “calm down.”
array_key_first 7mo ago
If you give specific numbers then I expect sources. If you give out incredibly bold claims then I also expect sources. It's one thing to talk casually, in which case I agree with you. But as soon as hard numbers are on the table, it's no longer casual, and if you do not provide sources then the assumption has to be that you pulled the numbers out of your ass and you are not to be trusted. To get around that, just don't provide numbers and don't speak authoritatively. It's very easy, I don't know why people speak authoritatively if they know they can't back it up.
- jatora 7mo ago
  The earth is 21,000 miles in circumference "SOURCE?" There's a middle ground here that is a grey area that you seem to be pretending is obviously navigated. You're speaking pretty authoritatively on this by the way. Do you have the moral, propositional logic, and epistemological justification for these claims?
  - array_key_first 7mo ago
    I didn't make any claims, all of that is my opinion. There's literally no claims there. I just said that people who spew out numbers then can't provide a source aren't trustworthy - that's an opinion. And there's obviously a difference between an established and obvious fact and a BOLD claim. This person made a BOLD claim. And provided numbers. To me, that requires a source. Yes, there is a middle ground, but this isn't in the middle ground. I think this type of claim requires a source. A different claim, without specific percentages, would not. Or an obvious claim, like the Earth's circumference, also would not.
    - jatora 6mo ago
      [flagged]
  - Forgeties79 7mo ago
    I’m not sure I find this to be a comparable example. If someone was making an important calculation or decision based on the circumference of the earth, then they would likely want the number cited/confirmed and not just thrown out by a random person that doesn’t pass the smell test. “Radiologists are only right 35% of the time” does not pass the smell test and a cursory search makes the case even worse.

by jatora 7mo ago

Betelbuddy 7mo ago

Someone drops very specific percentages about diagnostic accuracy....numbers that, if true, have serious implications for patient outcomes, and your concern is that I did not ask nicely enough for a source? I could not think of a more HN typical response... I did not even call the claim false, even if it almost deserve it...I said, essentially ...let's see the references so we can treat this as fact rather than opinion. What you did is write a longer and more prescriptive comment about my tone than anything anyone has written about the actual substance :-)). You tone policed a one line request for evidence while giving a complete pass to unsourced medical statistics presented as fact. If we are ranking things that erode discourse quality, I would say you are higher on the list.

jatora 7mo ago
[flagged]
- Betelbuddy 7mo ago
  Three comments in... and you still have not said a single word about whether radiologists actually catch 35% of diagnoses. But you have found time to call me passive aggressive, entitled, lazy, and immature. For one sentence. Asking for a source... You are now, multiple comments deep, doing the thing you accuse me of...being more invested in tone than substance. The irony is genuinely impressive at this point.
  - storus 7mo ago
    If you look at early stage diseases it's probably even way less than 35%...
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
  - jatora 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - sethammons 7mo ago
      The lack of self awareness you display is impressive. Grade A troll or bot. As someone who sometimes misses things, I find it mildly interesting when someone is so confidently not on the same page as others. Good luck.
      - jatora 7mo ago
        Very unspecific. Zero value comment
- Forgeties79 7mo ago
  > Calm down You had a point until you did that.
  - jatora 7mo ago
    Nah there's no reason to just accept someone's outbursts and not call them out for unsolicited high emotion lol
    - Forgeties79 7mo ago
      You can’t complain about somebody’s tone/call them passive aggressive and then use intentionally inflammatory language like “calm down.”

array_key_first 7mo ago

If you give specific numbers then I expect sources. If you give out incredibly bold claims then I also expect sources. It's one thing to talk casually, in which case I agree with you. But as soon as hard numbers are on the table, it's no longer casual, and if you do not provide sources then the assumption has to be that you pulled the numbers out of your ass and you are not to be trusted. To get around that, just don't provide numbers and don't speak authoritatively. It's very easy, I don't know why people speak authoritatively if they know they can't back it up.

jatora 7mo ago
The earth is 21,000 miles in circumference "SOURCE?" There's a middle ground here that is a grey area that you seem to be pretending is obviously navigated. You're speaking pretty authoritatively on this by the way. Do you have the moral, propositional logic, and epistemological justification for these claims?
- array_key_first 7mo ago
  I didn't make any claims, all of that is my opinion. There's literally no claims there. I just said that people who spew out numbers then can't provide a source aren't trustworthy - that's an opinion. And there's obviously a difference between an established and obvious fact and a BOLD claim. This person made a BOLD claim. And provided numbers. To me, that requires a source. Yes, there is a middle ground, but this isn't in the middle ground. I think this type of claim requires a source. A different claim, without specific percentages, would not. Or an obvious claim, like the Earth's circumference, also would not.
  - jatora 6mo ago
    [flagged]
- Forgeties79 7mo ago
  I’m not sure I find this to be a comparable example. If someone was making an important calculation or decision based on the circumference of the earth, then they would likely want the number cited/confirmed and not just thrown out by a random person that doesn’t pass the smell test. “Radiologists are only right 35% of the time” does not pass the smell test and a cursory search makes the case even worse.