>arguing with someone on the internet
>opponent makes a claim, asserts it to be factually true
>ask for a source for this claim
>opponent tells you to "just Google it"
>explain why that's not a viable response
>they exclaim, "I won't spoonfeed you. I'm not responsible for your lack of research."
>to which you respond, "I'm not responsible for your lack of evidence and inability to discern your subjective opinion from objective fact."
>opponent loses their shit
>tries to flip the script and retaliate by asking for sources on every "claim" you've made thus far even though you haven't actually made any claims, just offered opinions and subjective observations without even asserting them as factually true
>opponent doesn't understand how it's different
>point out this obvious diversion tactic and that your opponent still hasn't made any attempts to provide evidence for their claim
>opponent tells you to go fuck yourself and ragequits
Why does this happen so often?
Arguing with someone on the internet
Because people have opinions ready in droves, but it's not actually informed opinions. They haven't done the work, they just "believe" in this point of view.
No discussion can come of it, but then should a discussion actually arise it will be sabotaged by those who are too angry to accept knowledge that contradicts their views, or too ignorant to contribute anything worthwhile and finally, too trollish to care but wanting to cause strive for the sake of it.
Discussions online can't work, lowest common denominator is also the loudest.
This very thread is a good example of some of the dynamics on Yas Forums - there's no naked women, there's nothing to be angry about and it's no comedic in its exaggeration, thus the Yas Forumstards stay away, as real conversation bores them.
Just as often as when someone provides evidence and the source , and therefore the evidence, is dismissed out of hand as being "biased" or as often as when source is provided and the response is "I don't have time to read that shit"
Thankfully a decent conversation can happen outside the internet though - but it'll be an act of optimism to expect such a thing to function here.
Yas Forums especially unlikely.
The advent of Google has ruined people's brains. The other answer, is that it's an obvious diversion tactic.
I don't subscribe to the conspiracy.
But I agree that the easy access to trivia has somewhat dulled the need to maintain a functioning short term memory.
>I don't subscribe to the conspiracy
... what conspiracy? You just typed that easy access to trivia has somewhat dulled the need to maintain a functioning short-term memory.
Unfortunately not so much anymore. Most people take any disagreement as a personal assault. Used to be you could have a discussion where 2 intelligent people could completely disagree and still view each other as intelligent people. Now if you disagree it must be because the other guy is a moron or at best a brainwashed dup. That's why I stick to online now. I don't care if you get offended and if you have to insult it means you ran out of any viable argument.
It's the "diversion tactic" part, I don't think it's an intented thing, so much we do is just luck, bad or good.
True, currently the knee-jerk reaction is to be angry when someone doesn't agree - but I think (hope) that in academia a proper discussion can still occur.
I agree. I think more often than not the demand for a source means they have no counter argument and they can smugly act like your argument is wrong if you can't instantly show a link. I think a better response is to flip a link that supports the counterargument rather than call for source. Of course the problem is that this takes time you might not have before the thread gets shoved off by porn. Which the people calling for source are well aware.
It's also rare to see someone say "I don't know, let me look into it". As if admitting to not knowing something is a defeat, or a weakness.
Take it from a former research professor. The idea that academics are empirical thinkers is a myth. One thing academics are good at is name dropping to make it seem like they really know their stuff but just like online they know you can't look up what they're referencing. If you watch an academic argue there is an inverse relation between the amount of names or studies dropped and how closely their specific fields match.
Ow, that's disheartening. Academican bluff still alive and well, bugger and damnation.
It's intended when it's a troll attempt, but only then. Hence, a case where the answer is that it's an obvious diversion tactic. Having it happen on accident fits under the answer of Google ruining people's brains.
At that point, I usually force them to dig their own smug-grave.
This. So, so much this. Its like the idea of a professional nowadays is someone who knows the answer to every question instantly rather than someone who is able to find you the correct answer with a little investigation. Its like when dealing with doctors. I have a lot more respect for a doctor who says, "I'm not sure it might be this" rather one that confidently rattles off a latin phrase that basically translates to ""unknown malady"
I thank you guys for the talk - unfortunately the greater throng of Yas Forums will never know, nor care.
Also *academical - my typing fingers are wibbly.
>they know you can't look up what they're referencing.
Big this. "Pay $$$ to view this shitty study in an obscure journal or admit I'm right."
This is why the peer review is important.
It get worse. Another myth is that for scientists what is being said carries more weight than who is speaking. But in reality academics worship authority "the big names" with more rapt adoration than teens at a Bieber concert..
Oh well, it's uphill work then. I'm not pessimistic though, the few who press through the general ignorance and pride have given us much to strive for. I'm confident we'll manage, as a species.
Towards a type 1 civilization and beyond!
>type-1 human civilization
>type-1 human civilization extrapolated from current civilization
God is dead.
>Why does this happen so often?
Because you're arguing with conservatives
Peer review is a joke. Academia is sliced so thin anyone whose been in a field for more than a decade not only knows the players but knows exactly what kind of research is coming out of what lab and writing styles. The big names will slam on new people to the field or may proxy war a little bit against each others grad students but unless a paper completely strays from accepted theory or truly is a complete piece of crap its going to get a pass.
We're still a type zero though.
Alas.
True. It will happen. Its just frustrating knowing that if scientists behaved as they should we'd have starships by now.
>Because you're arguing with
I do feel that frustration as well.
Though I suspect it's political self-interest and religious ditto that's hampered scientific growth more than anything.
But I trust we'll get there, so much amazing stuff has happened in the 20th century alone, this trend seem to continue - we'll be okay.
Because not everyone has studied rhetoric or taken time to think critically. Same problem we see in stupid people across the globe! Go to school, y'all!
I'm apprehensive about us moving forwards. I don't trust us.
I don't trust us with starships.
Pondering is fine. But we should most definitely learn from our mistakes, and demonstrate an overwhelming case of having since learned from them. Otherwise, I can't say that optimism for the sake of optimism is well. I would not trust every single person I know, with that kind of power.
And trends indicate that I can't expect to trust future generations with that power, based solely on my optimism that they will have figured things out.
>copy pasting an online argument you had to garner support for arguing online in order to stroke how superior you are in letting people know not to argue online...because you exist
user you are hitting levels of faggotry that simply never existed before
how it actually works
>make a claim
>asked for source
>provide valid source
>kek he believes (insert universally respected institution here), i mean a REAL source
Internet arguments usually aren't actually arguments. Neither side cares about whatever point they seem to want to get across.
They just want the attention of another human being, and don't care if it's negative attention.
They'd probably prefer positive attention, but might not have have confidence in getting it. Negative attention is easy to get though. Effortless.
>go to Yas Forums
>post
>believe you're getting a response from someone interested in conversation and not a neet jew giggling over upsetting you
gonahaveabadtime.img
Such is life, each generation will have to push towards excellence, can't use previous generations experiences - this is frustrating, but necessary. It means things will take time and we must each find it ourselves to be patient and forgive the faltering of each new generation. As those who came before us, forgave us. Never give up, user.
not the user you were responding to but I believe he was trying to point out to you that peer review forms an entrenched establishment, any "viable" path provided by that entrenched establishment doesn't automatically become the objectively best path by virtue of it's sanction, and furthermore any happiness accrued may only be nothing more than relief from pressure to conform
Also, that this constitutes the dynamic in the Nietzsche quote from this user
>each generation will have to push towards excellence
Doubtful, because they can't pull excellence from the ether. Someone or something has to give them the means.
>can't use previous generations experiences
If you fail to learn from history...
>we must each find it ourselves to be patient and forgive the faltering of each new generation
I cannot in good faith find it in myself to be willfully ignorant of what went wrong.
your brain is wired to meet your needs, not necessarily in the healthiest or most sustainable way. you can bet that someone is selling you something based on that understanding, and maybe they even know that it's not good for you, and maybe, just maybe, they hate enough to not care. careful though, don't think about it too long or you might become a racist or something
History in one thing, experience another.
It's the nature of things, and has been always. Human nature, warts and all.
Nobody is asking you to be wilfully ignorant - but perhaps apply the same patience to those who follow, as did those we ourselves followed. It makes life kinder and grander in scale.
Yes, I understood that, and I understand the frustration experienced in academica for that very reason. Since it's a known phenomenon we can address it, and so take a bit of the sting out of its tail.
I'm an optimistic nihilist I suppose.
Because cuckservatives are idiots (subjective opinion).
>History in one thing
>experience another
Each generation starts out with neither of their own.
>Nobody is asking you to be wilfully ignorant
You're asking for me to be patient, in a very overbearing and vague way. I don't like that. There must be a necessary truth within all of this, it can't just be a protracted event of pretending, or of kindness and grandiose belief.
There has to be some grit. We have to be grounded somewhere. Aware.
/Yas Forums
Nothing else needs to be said really.
I'm gonna need a source on that bold claim
Think I saw this happening to you in gay corona thread yesterday
An optimist and a nihilist? Well which one is the oxy and which one is the moron?
What you mean by "known phenomenon"? Are you suggesting that because one is aware of a system which has power over you, that you are in fact not subject to that power?
Patience and grit aren't mutually exclusive.
At any rate, you seem to be settled in this mindset, and it'll be silly of me to try to convince you otherwise.
It's all just points of view anyway.
I so wish you'd read the full thread.
Here I meant to do this, but posted too quick because of endless captchas
>because one is aware of a system which has power over one, that one is in fact not subject to that power?
And I meant to add, that seems like another vaguery which could be semantically argued for in all but the most extreme examples of slavery where in someone is physically forcing
Observe internet discussions in general.
Tell me what you have seen.
This is what I did there.
>Why does this happen so often?
source?
There is a pattern which appears in many fields but especially in politics and religion, especially amongst the irrational. You could just simply explain to me, as a newly engaged conversant, what it is you wish I had read, rather than passive aggressively (and incorrectly in this case) implying my ignorance, then placing your point beyond my reach, elevated by some requisite task, in this case reading the thread, but in other cases learning a language or studying for x amount of years y subject matter. I don't wish to speak to you anymore, I will go back to lurking.
I so do hope you are not so disingenuous as you seem.
Actually, no. It's easy to say, "this is a fact, you can Google it," and then when your opponent Googles it and returns nothing, you can blame their poor research skills. And if they return something and debate it, you can just say, "Oh I didn't mean THAT piece of evidence, I meant another one that you haven't found yet." It's something people do frequently.
You were being adverse to anything but forgiveness, as a response. You suggested things like excellence, grandness, kindness, patience, progress, and only things that happened to rest above the proverbial waterline. Focus, focus, focus. On all the shiny, nice, bright promises and abstractions. What-ifs. Don't focus on the mistakes of the past, ignore them when they happen, forgive them and don't dwell on them. The future is bright. Just, believe it. Growth of humanity. Ignore the naysayers, the misanthropes. Ignore anyone who would point out the futility, the folly. Pay no mind to those who would object. Have faith. Only good things can come. Be happy. Only happy thoughts.
This is all very cult-like. When I think of patience, I don't take its meaning from how you've used it in your language. I crawl in my skin when I read it. Something is wrong with it. It's as if I am about to watch several good men be sent to their certain death, under promise of return. It all seems very wrong. Propagandist, if not cult-like. Too glib, too eager to trivialize the knowledge of genocide, to remain astutely unaware of the past. Almost like it's trying to erase something, for some sort of convenience, to ease some kind of conflict or pressure.
user, I sincerely don't trust you when you type those things in that fashion. I would not, could not, and do not. It's like watching a parade trample the parade-goers, while no one, not even the trampled, objects. It's all merely celebrated. The parade never stops the dead are never mourned. It all simply proceeds, for the sake of proceeding, for the sake of happening.
Grit. Grit is thus passion, but mindful passion. Goal-oriented passion. Focused persistence, long-term and unrelenting. It is the marathon of achievement. And it does not chase unrealistic expectations. It is not infatuation. It is not something of intense emotion. This "forgiving patience" you preach...
I hope you weren't trying to convert me.
... so, it's an obvious diversion tactic.
No, it's a legitimate form of debate...
Avoiding having your opponent find legitimate sources that you have in mind is perfectly valid.
>Avoiding having your opponent find legitimate sources that you have in mind is perfectly valid
Obscuring information during a debate is valid... ?
Yes.
I don't understand. Please, explain?
spambot
I just did. There is nothing wrong with claiming you have sources but not providing them
Exactly what OP is talking about, right there. Those are very obviously observations, not even remotely asserted as fact. Just theory.
You've simply told me that there is nothing wrong with it, not why there is nothing wrong with it.
Why isn't it OK, then?
... please answer my question first.