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

[LetalisK]

You are just going have accept that sometimes people do have knowledge and experience that isn't on wikipedia

But I don't have to accept that a specific person I'm talking to has that knowledge and experience.

 

[Janaschi]

Three things that I take into account when in a debate/argument:

1. Who made the original claim? The burden of proof lies with them, and it is perfectly valid to have to address opposition. If the person with the burden of proof, either refuses to provide proof, or becomes defensive over the fact that someone would have the gall to question their "Fact(s)," then I consider the discussion worthless, and I will typically leave before I get caught up in their egocentric bubble.

2. When it comes to those opposing those holding the burden of proof, there is a well known logical fallacy known as raising the bar. If I hold the burden of proof, and I keep providing proof, while the other person keeps saying that is not enough, while not providing any counter proof, then, again, I consider the discussion worthless. Arguing for the sake of arguing, is about the most obnoxious thing that you can do.

3. Arguing from ignorance. I remember a little while back, I was speaking to a friend about the Vietnam War, and I could tell that they barely knew anything about it. Yet they kept using hearsay and partial knowledge, to pretend that they were historically accurate in their beliefs. I am sorry - not much pisses me off, but people pretending that their ignorance = knowledge, royally pisses me off. Nothing brings down humanity's collective intelligence, like those that act like their uninformed opinions are facts. It is the very reason why so much of our history, as a whole, is so biased and untrustworthy.

 

[Callate]

I'm sure this happens, but I don't see it all that often. What I do see far more often (and far too often) is "I will disparage your sources, viewpoint, and research because I'm buffered by my certainty and feel absolutely no need to provide any form of corroboration of my own" and/or "I'm going to breeze past being proven incorrect on this point because my broader point is too important to be held up by trivialities like factual correctness."

...And occasionally "I refuse to engage with anyone who won't take the time to indoctrinate themselves with the pre-suppositions inherent in my buzzwords and lingo", but that's another story.

 

[Albino Boo]

No one begins an argument with a presumption of being correct. If we were assuming you were correct, then we wouldn't be arguing. Since you begin in a place where you are assumed to be wrong, it is your duty to prove yourself correct not because the emperor of the internet is dictating it to you but because that is the path you chose when you started arguing in the first place.

But I don't have to accept that a specific person I'm talking to has that knowledge and experience.

Alright you two what's the best way to take navigation data from multiple instruments to get the best fix over time and not be distorted by rouge readings. I know because I have been paid large amounts to money to know.

How do you write software that's going to run aircraft flight computers. Again I know because I have been paid a large amount of money to know. Its probable that some people here has flown on aircraft that running code that I have contributed to.

You have to understand that other people know things because it what they get paid to do and on particular topics your opinion is not worth the same as someone else's opinion. Not everybody in the world has the same knowledge base and other people know more than you.

 

[Smooth Operator]

It's been said already but the one making claims brings the info, or his claims are bupkis.
But on the internet there is no "proof" that can't be invented and by extent everyone who doesn't want your claim to have validity will just say it's not good enough.
Another very important thing to consider is that your interpretation of information is not 100%, you may want to see your argument supported in it and others will see theirs.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

No one begins an argument with a presumption of being correct. If we were assuming you were correct, then we wouldn't be arguing. Since you begin in a place where you are assumed to be wrong, it is your duty to prove yourself correct not because the emperor of the internet is dictating it to you but because that is the path you chose when you started arguing in the first place.

But I don't have to accept that a specific person I'm talking to has that knowledge and experience.

Alright you two what's the best way to take navigation data from multiple instruments to get the best fix over time and not be distorted by rouge readings. I know because I have been paid large amounts to money to know.

How do you write software that's going to run aircraft flight computers. Again I know because I have been paid a large amount of money to know. Its probable that some people here has flown on aircraft that running code that I have contributed to.

You have to understand that other people know things because it what they get paid to do and on particular topics your opinion is not worth the same as someone else's opinion. Not everybody in the world has the same knowledge base and other people know more than you.

Yeah... but aren't you just assuming they don't have that knowledge so your opinion on that would be worth more than theirs? Isn't that kind of a dangerous pitfall?

OT: You can find a source to back up nearly anything and if you're at the point of defending it on the internet it's doubtful you can be objective about how you learned it. Case in point, anti-vax folks citing a study from the 90's from a guy who flatout lied about his results and got his medical license revoked. Add this to the fact your sources are unlikely to be read and it very quickly becomes an episode in futility.
Plus, if you're asking for sources on a controversial topic you should have some of your own ready to respond with. Only ask for sources if you can provide your own.

 

[Queen Michael]

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Pretty simple.

This is true. Back up your claims or don't make them.

 

[Albino Boo]

Yeah... but aren't you just assuming they don't have that knowledge so your opinion on that would be worth more than theirs? Isn't that kind of a dangerous pitfall?

It called an educated guess. The number of people that do how to know about the first one is the region of 500,000 worldwide. Most of those are wearing, or have worn, military officers uniform and knowing the answer will bring questions about how they know which they don't want answer.

The second one is similar in that it's a niche area of knowledge employing every few people worldwide and it's not a job you walk into in the beginning of your career. Given the age profile here, the odds are stacked in my favor my some considerable margin.

 

[LetalisK]

No one begins an argument with a presumption of being correct. If we were assuming you were correct, then we wouldn't be arguing. Since you begin in a place where you are assumed to be wrong, it is your duty to prove yourself correct not because the emperor of the internet is dictating it to you but because that is the path you chose when you started arguing in the first place.

But I don't have to accept that a specific person I'm talking to has that knowledge and experience.

Alright you two what's the best way to take navigation data from multiple instruments to get the best fix over time and not be distorted by rouge readings. I know because I have been paid large amounts to money to know.

How do you write software that's going to run aircraft flight computers. Again I know because I have been paid a large amount of money to know. Its probable that some people here has flown on aircraft that running code that I have contributed to.

You have to understand that other people know things because it what they get paid to do and on particular topics your opinion is not worth the same as someone else's opinion. Not everybody in the world has the same knowledge base and other people know more than you.

And assuming what you stated was relevant to an argument we were having, why do you expect me to believe that you, and specifically you, know how to do that? Just because you said so? Why should I just take you on your word? I mean, there are people who you can build a repertoire with that you CAN trust what they say on any number of subjects at face value(and/or subjects that aren't in dispute where there is no reason to doubt the other person). There are a few people like that for me on this site. But it's not a viable philosophy on the internet with not just its legions of cranks but also the tornado of legitimate arguments either way, particularly when it comes to more controversial and disputed(I'm assuming) arguments and facts than about aircraft flight computer software.

Not to mention this has nothing to do with "not everybody in the world has the same knowledge base and other people know more than you". This has been acknowledged and is besides the point.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Yeah... but aren't you just assuming they don't have that knowledge so your opinion on that would be worth more than theirs? Isn't that kind of a dangerous pitfall?

It called an educated guess. The number of people that do how to know about the first one is the region of 500,000 worldwide. Most of those are wearing, or have worn, military officers uniform and knowing the answer will bring questions about how they know which they don't want answer.

The second one is similar in that it's a niche area of knowledge employing every few people worldwide and it's not a job you walk into in the beginning of your career. Given the age profile here, the odds are stacked in my favor my some considerable margin.

>.> I hate myself right now, but this is the textbook example of when to do it
"Request a source for the 500,000/military" quoted amount.

I don't actually want it, I'm willing to believe that short of particularly adept commercial aircraft pilots and seamen your statement is quite correct. But this is the kind of thing that people would reasonable ask a source for. And that is kind of the point of the thread.

Even if YOU know it, unless you can explain your knowledge, your opinion (as well informed as it doubtless is) is indistinguishable from the guy who consistently refers to aircraft as 'metal birdies' and disagrees with you but assures us all he's got the same/greater qualifications to you.

Possession of knowledge and demonstration of knowledge are different things when it comes to debate and you need to provide evidence of any claim.

Just to repeat, I don't doubt ANYTHING you said, I'm just pointing out what I see as the flaw in your case.

 

[Thaluikhain]

My point with all of this is, even if I bother to get you the research, are you going to read it? Because my experience is that people are not going to bother to read it, they are not open to actually changing their opinion, and I do not have the time to research when people just won't bother.

Very much this.

OTOH, well, I've ignored what people have presented as evidence, because it clearly wasn't.

 

[LetalisK]

My point with all of this is, even if I bother to get you the research, are you going to read it? Because my experience is that people are not going to bother to read it, they are not open to actually changing their opinion, and I do not have the time to research when people just won't bother.

Very much this.

OTOH, well, I've ignored what people have presented as evidence, because it clearly wasn't.

Tagging along with this line, I agree and there are some times where it is better not to bother. My philosophy is that I will give any person's argument no more attention or dedication than what they give it themselves. So if they aren't willing to do research on it if it's questioned, then there is no compelling reason for me to do their homework for them. HOWEVER I also hold the opposite to be true. If I'm unwilling to back up my own claims, for whatever reason(ie it's because I don't want to, I don't have the time, I feel my time will be wasted on a fool, etc) I can not hold it against someone else if they summarily toss my arguments out.

 

[ForumSafari]

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.

I very much agree with this, it's particularly bad when it's a subject that's basically an evolved version of a subject people think they know about because then you get the unknown unknown thing and people think that they're experts.

Particularly annoying about the evidence pls thing is that most of the time you know they don't actually want evidence, they're just looking to get rid of you.

 

[Zhukov]

I demand that the OP provide at least six direct examples of the descried scenario in action! Burden of proof!

Hurr hurr.

Seriously though, I sympathize with A. However, I think that B is free to dismiss A due to A's refusal to provide sources and A should realise that.

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.

 

[inmunitas]

Alright you two what's the best way to take navigation data from multiple instruments to get the best fix over time and not be distorted by rouge readings. I know because I have been paid large amounts to money to know.

Why the abstract factory design methodology of course. I get paid to know is stuff, I'm an expert, you can't argue with me because I know more then you.


Everyone on the Internet is anonymous and can easily lie about who they are, anyone coming from a STEM background would be aware of this.

Refusing to provide evidence to claims is just intellectually dishonest.

 

[LetalisK]

You greatly mistake that I care what you believe. The problem that you have ,is that you think what you believe is anyway important to me.

And on that we have common ground. And I don't mean that in a snarky shitty way either. I've learned to not care too much that people disagree with me here. I don't take it personally and then end up responding emotionally instead of intelligently. It's just not worth getting upset about.

You are almost certainly the most important person in your world but you are of no account to me.

I don't know why you are so fixated on this line of thinking. Again, this is a pointless attack that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. My stance has nothing to do with anyone's importance or who is the center of whoever's world. If anyone has any importance, it's the person who is being asked to backup their assertions since they've clearly said something important enough to warrant further inquiry. I talked about it a bit more, though from a different direction, in my comment to Thal.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Yeah... but aren't you just assuming they don't have that knowledge so your opinion on that would be worth more than theirs? Isn't that kind of a dangerous pitfall?

It called an educated guess. The number of people that do how to know about the first one is the region of 500,000 worldwide. Most of those are wearing, or have worn, military officers uniform and knowing the answer will bring questions about how they know which they don't want answer.

The second one is similar in that it's a niche area of knowledge employing every few people worldwide and it's not a job you walk into in the beginning of your career. Given the age profile here, the odds are stacked in my favor my some considerable margin.

That's great and all, but it's meaningless in a debate unless you can actually provide some verifiable information.
You don't have to prove everything you know, but you have to give people at least enough to work with to show you have a basic grasp of the subject you claim to be an expert on beyond saying 'trust me, I'm an expert'.

You can argue 'why should I have to prove my status as an expert', but you are arguing anonymously on the internet. It's meaningless for me to assume you are an expert on anything without being able to either verify your level of knowledge on a subject in an objective manner (eg, cross-check it against some other source), or being able to establish your identity and some basis for your supposed expert status through those means.

I might not ask my doctor to prove what they know (though I'm certainly not going to blindly take anything they say at face value, and never check up on any of it.), but if I meet some random anonymous person online that claims to be a doctor, I'm going to be very careful about whether I believe this claim of authority or not, unless the subject being discussed is entirely trivial.

It's fun talking to an 'expert' though sometimes when it's obvious they are full of it, by the way they try and throw their weight around to insist they are right about things you really don't need to be an expert in a subject to know are dubious remarks that are highly unlikely to be correct.
It's frustrating because when this happens the most common response is not any attempt to justify or explain why they are right, it is almost always a blind 'appeal to authority'.
But an appeal to authority is not an argument. It is an attempt to bully someone into not questioning you.
If the reasons for you not being able to reasonably back up your case in any way have to do with it being highly specialised knowledge that you cannot sum up easily, then it's reasonable to say so.
But simply saying 'trust me, I'm an expert' is a massive cop-out that deserves little respect in the context of an online debate.


Speaking of which, burden of proof has come up in this thread, and it's worth noting that the burden of proof generally lies with the person whose claims are the most unusual, not necessarily with the person that started any particular debate.
Regardless of the reasons, if you state something that others have a reason to suspect is highly improbable, it's on you to prove why it is in fact true, not them.

 

[maninahat]

Depends on the kind of evidence being required. If it is something that can be found on Google in seconds, I sympathise with A. If the thing hasn't been found by B even after some searching, it would make sense for B to ask A where they got their facts from. Both should be mindful of the relative ease to find said sources to support their claim.

 

[HardkorSB]

A has several examples. In fact he has 3 tabs and a podcast of examples open on his desktop right now and is dumbstruck anyone could be ignorant of them.

That's a wrong approach.
You can't expect people to know something just because you know something.
Those things may be obvious and easy to find for you but because you have "researched the topic of the thread extensively" but many other people probably haven't so if you really want them to get informed, just give them some links, it's not hard work to copy and paste a few things, especially if you have them already.

How do you react to being told to "Do your own research"? Do you tend to say it? Can it actually lead to someone informing themselves? Is it a real issue or am I making a mountain out of a molehill? Or is internet conversation just doomed no matter how we go about it?

I always tell people to do their own research, even if I give them some info myself because there's always someone more informed on any given subject than me and there's always new information popping up.
I always look up multiple unaffiliated sources because everyone is biased to some degree so you have to eliminate that bias as much as possible.

What place do the phrases "It's not my job to do your research for you" and "Do your own research" have in internet debate, and how can we deal with them?

If you're really having a debate with 3rd parties observing and possibly making up their mind on the topic, then if you actually provide sources of information, it gives you more credibility than if you wouldn't have.

 

[Albino Boo]

Everyone on the Internet is anonymous and can easily lie about who they are, anyone coming from a STEM background would be aware of this.

Refusing to provide evidence to claims is just intellectually dishonest.

snip .

This is the internet not an academic paper. If you you want an academic paper then use google on the subject and read one. The vast majority of population of the world have better things to do with their time than turn a 100 word post on the internet into an academic paper. Take this statement

It called an educated guess. The number of people that do how to know about the first one is the region of 500,000 worldwide. Most of those are wearing, or have worn, military officers uniform and knowing the answer will bring questions about how they know which they don't want answer.

You will not find sources on the internet that will verify those statements. Its a guess based on my personal knowledge, of how long those kind of systems have been in use and how many people at one time would need to know that and how many places these kind of systems are in use. Not one of those thing are backed by sources on the internet because those are not the kind of information that gets into the public domain. If you want to try and verify that those facts be my guest but I'm not going to bother because it doesn't matter