"It's Not My Job to Do Your Research for You"

[JimB]

Consider 'Do your own research' to be a test.

It's a bad test, though. Do you know how psychics and con artists work? They don't try to convince the mark of their claims; they rely on the mark to do that himself, because it's a very old and well-established trick of psychological manipulation. You can't hit your mark's buttons the way he can hit his own (see also why threats are best when the consequences aren't made explicit, because the victim will dream up the thing that scares him the most and do a better job of frightening himself than you will), so you make him prove you right.

When you administer this test of yours, it might not be your goal to pull out one of the oldest, cheapest, and most tired tricks of con artistry, but that's sure how it comes off.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Meh, I've done that. I'm not going to waste my time digging up notes from a university course I took two years ago just so someone on the internet can dismiss them because they don't mesh with their established beliefs. I'm still going to comment smugly because I took the fucking course and bothered to learn the shit. But whether random person on a gaming forum accepts what experts and academics already know to be true doesn't affect me.

 

[Albino Boo]

You keep on stating that internet discussions don't matter, that you don't care whether the other person believes it or not, that you have have better things to with your time. That's totally fine, but if that's what you believe, then why even weigh in on the topic in the first place?

NO if that matter so much you to you that you want sources then you find them. Its you lot who think burden of proof etc is important so you guys do the work and prove statements wrong if matter that much to you. You can't have it both ways, if its is important then you put some effort into disapproving what other people say.

 

[TranshumanistG]

My point of view is about what a highly idealized version of a debate should be like, where the debating sides are more interested in seeking out the truth than pushing their side. The kind, which is no less collaboration than a competition. Where the debater take turns trying to understand were the other side is coming from and trying to help the other side with that and are not afraid to change their opinion if it the arguments are reasonable enough. Like comparing notes or resolving a `git merge` conflict. Again, this is highly idealized, but really, why should you expect other people to put effort in humbly listening to you and earnestly sharing what they know if you aren't willing to do the same?

Like others have stated, I think that the the burden of proof lies on the one who made the original claim, and often at the point when the claim is made. I wouldn't make it a completely strict expectation, though. A lot of this boils down to how well you know you know who you're talking to. The claimant shouldn't go overboard with the sources if the claimant is pretty sure that the person they're debating, and possibly a lot of the audience is very likely to agree with the claim. Another point of relaxation would for negative claims, like claims that something doesn't exist, again granted if the claimant is pretty sure that what they're saying is something that the person they're debating won't consider completely unexpected and off the bat. Of course, if that's not the case, the proof should at least take care to provide rebuttals to any arguments in favor of what they're denying that they are aware of, preferably with sources or at least a clear explanation in case of a logical fallacy. If the claimant decided to make a specific claim without providing sources and they have been requested, they should be provided.

Now, a bit more about why I think the "Do your own research is wrong". First, the can be genuine cases when the person on the other side of the debate is unable to find the required sources. Stuff like lmgtfy existing doesn't mean that there is more than one way to search for things and they can yield results with different quality and position. Digressing a bit from the "idealized debate", another thing to note is that sometimes people as for sources not because they don't believe you have any, but because they don't believe they will be valid. I think, it's OK to question validity of sources, but often debates just move away into meta territory with people actually argue about the validity of the sources.

At the risk of introducing another layer of meta-debates, I suggest laying out ground rules first. Discuss the sources you usually point and see people on the opposite sides of the debate pointing to, in which cases referring to them in your opinion should be valid for the purposes of the debates and under what conditions they can be considered invalid. Try to find consensus in classification for types of sources. Furthermore, discuss in which cases a source validates an argument and in which case the conclusion is too speculative or made while ignoring important details of the context.

I think, we all have the potential to understand others and to let them understand ourselves. There are always some things we can agree on. We need to find them, build up on them and seek out a common truth together.

 

[JimB]

It's you lot who think burden of proof, etc., is important, so you guys do the work and prove statements wrong if they matter that much to you.

It's important if you actually want to convince me of something I don't already believe. If you don't care to convince me, yet insist on weighing in and having me implicitly acknowledge your (presumed) inherent correctness, then I have to assume you are only speaking to me at all for the sake of hearing your own voice, and that leads me to believe you are confusing expertise for egotism.

 

[The Bucket]

You keep on stating that internet discussions don't matter, that you don't care whether the other person believes it or not, that you have have better things to with your time. That's totally fine, but if that's what you believe, then why even weigh in on the topic in the first place?

NO if that matter so much you to you that you want sources then you find them. Its you lot who think burden of proof etc is important so you guys do the work and prove statements wrong if matter that much to you. You can't have it both ways, if its is important then you put some effort into disapproving what other people say.

What if I cant find any source on it? I have no way of knowing if i'm just missing it or if it doesnt exist at all. What if I find a source that's different from what you're working off and we end up arguing different points? Burden of proof isnt about trying to disprove things (although it can be used for that) its about letting both people who're debating something start at the same point.

One of the things I like about the internet is that we're partially disconnected from who we are in real life, an opinion is only worth as much as we can demonstrate and prove.

 

[briankoontz]

Internet arguments often aren't over matters of truth, but rather over underlying assumptions and ideology. Two people can completely agree on the facts and still come to completely different conclusions. Two different people can agree on the temperature with one saying that's "hot" and another that it's "cold".

Far too often there's the mistaken belief that the two parties share the same ideology and are merely discussing the "facts" with each other.

 

[TwistednMean]

Mostly I hear the "if you don't believe me, go educate yourself" argument from the people who come up with bogus claims about 4 in 1 women having been raped or world patriarchy regime universally oppressing women or other such nonsense. "Educating" in their mind actually means "read up on the fanatic propaganda and accept my crazy ideology".

So no this kind of thing doesn't fly. If you are that much more versed on the subject it should be even easier to correct a person who doesn't know as much. There is no good reason to claim something to be a well-known fact and then not bothering to prove it.

 

[Dogstile]

If you can't prove it, you are wrong. If you can prove it and can't be bothered to, then you shouldn't be arguing. If you are doing that, you are the bigger asshole, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

Bluntly, back it up or fuck off.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

If you want an academic paper then go to university. The internet is not an academic debate and I'm rather tired of people thinking that it is. I want scream every time someone goes ad hominem or straw man. You sometimes you have to call an idiot an idiot. This is not a court of law and there is no burden of proof. You are just going have accept that sometimes people do have knowledge and experience that isn't on wikipedia and quite frankly its not worth the time spending 2 hours on google to prove something that you know to some guy on the internet. Usually because they are full of sound and fury and don't know what the hell they are talking about.

This. This, so much.

I never understood how anyone can, say, start casually surfing on a Sunday afternoon, only to find a topic they grow so totally invested in they just NEED to spend several additional hours putting together the most cohesive thesis in support of their argument that they can possibly produce - links and bibliography included.

I understand that passion manifests differently for different people, and I can accept that some people just have no trouble spending a while defending a point of view they care about. They'll have no problems putting time into the research and construction of exhaustive arguments, which is a tremendous academic and social skill - but this is the Internet, for God's sake, and a gaming-related website, at that! We're not all in the same Hard Copy-esque mindset you might find yourself in, we might not currently have the intellectual fortitude to digest your forty-minute YouTube video supplied as proof, much less the energy to care.

This goes out to all the keyboard warriors out there, anyone who has a propensity towards investigative Walls of Text. Keep it simple, please, or at least provide a synthesis as a header or footer, something along the lines of the usual TL;DR add-on.

 

[xorinite]

I think I am with the majority here, if you make a claim and want people to believe that claim it is your responsibility to back that claim up with evidence.
If you cannot or will not that is fine, just don't expect a reasonable person to accept your claim on your word alone.

In short Hitchens's Razor applies; that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[TallanKhan]

Depends, if something is widespread enough to be "common knowledge" then no, I'm not going to do a run around citing sources.

For instance, if I am posting about superhero movies, and mention that 2011 Green Lantern was a critical and commercial flop that killed the franchise they were looking to spawn, 99% of anyone posting in such a thread will know that, and for those who don't, it takes two seconds to pull up Metacritic and/or Box Office Mojo and look. In circumstances like that there is no way I am doing the lifting, if they want to refute me, they can go find some evidence.

If on the other hand I am posting about a relatively specialist subject, and particularly if I am drawing conclusions based on data, I had better be able to back up the facts and figures I am using with some evidence, and that's on me.

 

[TallanKhan]

Depends, if something is widespread enough to be "common knowledge" then no, I'm not going to do a run around citing sources.

For instance, if I am posting about superhero movies, and mention that 2011 Green Lantern was a critical and commercial flop that killed the franchise they were looking to spawn, 99% of anyone posting in such a thread will know that, and for those who don't, it takes two seconds to pull up Metacritic and/or Box Office Mojo and look. In circumstances like that there is no way I am doing the lifting, if they want to refute me, they can go find some evidence.

If on the other hand I am posting about a relatively specialist subject, and particularly if I am drawing conclusions based on data, I had better be able to back up the facts and figures I am using with some evidence, and that's on me.

I would say that you're right in general, because in your example the person challenging you on that point (I have no clue about it by the way, I'm assuming you're right) is HIGHLY unlikely to be sincerely ignorant or confused.

Still, if it's two seconds of work, and the underlying principle still holds the burden to be yours, it's an odd line to draw IMO. The problem with allowing people who assert positive claims to dodge their burden even on small things, is that it allows for the intellectual equivalent of Spam Warfare; it shuts everything in a real debate down.

Compared to a formalism that has been serving humans well for longer than we've been alive, and two seconds of work, I'd do the two seconds and come off as the more informed and informative person.

I'm afraid I disagree, while I take your point about asserting positive claims, the same can be applied the other way, if you say someone has to be able to defend everything they say regardless, then if someone says something you don't like you can just keep demanding "prove it" to everything they assert.

You say this is a formalism that has been in place for years, but there has always been an acceptance that when making an argument you don't need to defend an accepted fact when used as part of your premise, and individual ignorance has no bearing on that. Someone asserting a discovery of a mathematical proof would not be obliged to prove 1+1=2 to satisfy someone ignorant of basic numeracy. In any circumstance, someone engaging in argument or debate must possess sufficient basic knowledge and understanding of the subject to meaningfully engage with others about it.

 

[cleric of the order]

I dislike the phrase.
Greatly.
It's one of weakness, self isolation, etc,etc.
In truth it is NEITHER of your jobs to research the shit but this argument is SUPPOSED to bring you both greater knowledge of each other and the surrounding arguments and as such patience is required even at the most blindly stupid requests (within limit, there are people merely there for agitation but that being said even something can be gleamed from that.)
I don't care how easy it was to find the information on you topic in general either, sharing proofs and the interchange of denial, refutation and argument is half the reason why you argue. That assuming one does not argue for the purpose of strawmanning another. If one simply wants to shout their correctness to the other then that is also fine but will not solve anything.

If you're demanding official peer-reviewed evidence in an internet argument then you're clearly taking it a great deal more seriously than I'm prepared to.

The internet is a good a publi..c fo..ru..m as...any (fuck I cannot keep a straight face).
But more seriously where often if life would you be able to have these sorts of conversations, universities and campus life one cannot live in indifferently and frankly from what I heard is largely against immoral conversation. And friends/colleague and the like are great but staleness and routine settles in. And as much as I shrink away from chaos of the internet, being shaken out of your routine is good, keeps everything in perspective.
Further more if peer reviewed evidence is available on the topic and more importantly relevant to the conversation at hand then perhaps the topic is mite bit serious. I understand that there are over dramatic fops that demand these sorts of things, but I would doubt they are the majority.
But then again you only get out what you are willing to put in.

 

[LetalisK]

Internet arguments often aren't over matters of truth, but rather over underlying assumptions and ideology. Two people can completely agree on the facts and still come to completely different conclusions. Two different people can agree on the temperature with one saying that's "hot" and another that it's "cold".

Far too often there's the mistaken belief that the two parties share the same ideology and are merely discussing the "facts" with each other.

I see this a lot. What I also see a lot is two people having two related but separate arguments and neither one of them realizes it. One person thinks they're arguing "A", one thinks they're saying "Not A", but in reality one is arguing "A" and the other "B" and they're not mutually exclusive.