Sources?! We don't need no stinkin' sources
There's a very weaselly tactic I've long noticed on non-academic forums of people asking for sources when engaged in a debate. Normally it wouldn't be a bad thing if you found and shared a source of your own that had conflicting reports, because that way the both of you could pore over both sets of information and try to reach some conclusion about the accuracy of the topic in question.
But far more often than not the request for a source is done in bad faith, as there almost never is an accompanying counter-argument to highlight the need for a source. It's mostly a way for a person to edify their own narrative by either hoping the other party doesn't find a source or, if they do, they can readily dismiss the source(s) as somehow invalid or dubious.
It's the pinnacle of intellectual laziness for people to derail the conversation in order to feel like they won. If it were an academic setting where both people have a fair bit of knowledge on the subject and disagreed on particulars, sources could go a long way to really clarifying the points of discussion, especially since one's academic integrity is on the line. There's a reputational consequence to being demonstrably wrong on a topic.
But when people decide to play the role of source-police in casual conversations on online forums where there are no such stakes, all it really highlights is just how unwilling a person is to look up information on their own when it differs from their preconceived view. Granted, there are cases where such information can be hard to find, but generally a search engine could point you in the right direction towards validating any points of contention. There's no need to force the other person to do your intellectual work for you.
I'm always willing to look up claims that I'm skeptical of, and can usually find sources that speak to the specific disagreement at hand. If after reading through one or more and still have concerns, I'd bring that up in the conversation at hand. It's a good faith effort to find out what's really right, instead of putting the burden of critical thinking solely on the other person and making it their job to convince you.
There's no way to win an argument with someone that's unwilling to learn. If you are willing to learn, there's no reason why you can't find a source on your own. Or why you need to flippantly dismiss a source when it disagrees with your point of view. Should a source genuinely be necessary, I've found that it's not very hard to give a valid counter-point that justifies the need for one. There is often conflicting information or studies and articles people misinterpret through simple human error. People can usually work towards a better understanding just by putting in the effort to understand, rather than making it a competition.
Asking for a source every time you don't agree with something only highlights the inability for a person to think for themselves.
But far more often than not the request for a source is done in bad faith, as there almost never is an accompanying counter-argument to highlight the need for a source. It's mostly a way for a person to edify their own narrative by either hoping the other party doesn't find a source or, if they do, they can readily dismiss the source(s) as somehow invalid or dubious.
It's the pinnacle of intellectual laziness for people to derail the conversation in order to feel like they won. If it were an academic setting where both people have a fair bit of knowledge on the subject and disagreed on particulars, sources could go a long way to really clarifying the points of discussion, especially since one's academic integrity is on the line. There's a reputational consequence to being demonstrably wrong on a topic.
But when people decide to play the role of source-police in casual conversations on online forums where there are no such stakes, all it really highlights is just how unwilling a person is to look up information on their own when it differs from their preconceived view. Granted, there are cases where such information can be hard to find, but generally a search engine could point you in the right direction towards validating any points of contention. There's no need to force the other person to do your intellectual work for you.
I'm always willing to look up claims that I'm skeptical of, and can usually find sources that speak to the specific disagreement at hand. If after reading through one or more and still have concerns, I'd bring that up in the conversation at hand. It's a good faith effort to find out what's really right, instead of putting the burden of critical thinking solely on the other person and making it their job to convince you.
There's no way to win an argument with someone that's unwilling to learn. If you are willing to learn, there's no reason why you can't find a source on your own. Or why you need to flippantly dismiss a source when it disagrees with your point of view. Should a source genuinely be necessary, I've found that it's not very hard to give a valid counter-point that justifies the need for one. There is often conflicting information or studies and articles people misinterpret through simple human error. People can usually work towards a better understanding just by putting in the effort to understand, rather than making it a competition.
Asking for a source every time you don't agree with something only highlights the inability for a person to think for themselves.
31-35, M
