3 ms·

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 whic

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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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.

jatora 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo 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.