Critical Thinking & The Citation Needed Fallacy

throw17453 · 2017-05-27T22:03:36+00:00

I am most intrigued by individuals who believe the absence of scientific evidence is sufficient grounds to invalidate a premise

Lack of scientific evidence for a position - whilst not sufficient grounds to invalidate it - is sufficient grounds to criticize that position, particularly if the person is presenting it as truth.

It is lazy because it permits the individual to dismiss a thing without consciously evaluating an argument based on its individual merits

Not neccesarily.

If you would consider scientific evidence existing that supports a position - as being a merit to it. Then it follows that lack of such evidence could be a way of consciously evaluating an argument as lacking in some merit.

The way you have phrased it - with "dismiss" - means I agree with your point. But that's putting it in the extreme, you can consider something to be undermined, because it lacks supporting scientific evidence, without dismissing it.

[Asking for citations // scientific evidence] implies that the individual dismissing a set of claims based on the absence of empirical evidence does not themselves hold beliefs that aren’t deductively valid. In practice this is untrue, and nothing more than a lazy way to refute premises one finds distasteful, for it is not the genuine nature of people to form beliefs solely on the basis they are backed by empirical evidence.

This is very accurate - but you've generalized. It is possible for someone to ask for scientific evidence for something - not as a means to undermine or dismiss, or to discredit that which is distasteful to them - but because they place an emphasis on empirical evidence when assessing the truth or value of a position.

This latter point is actually something Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris got caught up in, in a recent podcast. The difference between something being valuable - useful - having utility or a kind of "truth". And something being actually true in an empirical sense.

OGlancellannister · 2017-05-27T22:13:59+00:00

I am most intrigued by individuals who believe the absence of scientific evidence is sufficient grounds to invalidate a premise, for this is not only lazy thinking, but presumptive."

Good point, although in the absence of scientific evidence, while it is impossible to invalidate a premise, I do find it hard to validate a premise as well.

The worrying question is what happens when academic studies continue to hold less and less value. The whole post-modern movement is trying to destroy evidence-based science. Take a look at Skeptic.com on the conceptual penis hoax to see how far some journals have gone. With the bulk of humanities infected with Marxism or Post-Modernism, "scientific," research from that sector often borders on pure delusion.

UnpluggedMan · 2017-05-28T03:50:41+00:00

Any real scientist that knows shit about the philosophical foundations of science will straightforwardly admit it cannot tackle metaphysics. The questions asked in that branch in philosophy are simply not by definition the subject of scientific inquiry.

That being said, the lack of an ability to rigorously test metaphysical conclusions is in no small part why no real progress has been made in the subject since the Greeks. Every abstract thinker desperately wants to reduce it to a set of axioms from which a good, moral system by which to live one's life follows. Every philosopher to try their hand at creating such a system has failed miserably. Not every true claim can can be backed up by a peer-reviewed scientific study but those that can't are more suspect, and should be treated as such.

NeoreactionSafe · 2017-05-28T16:18:33+00:00

Now, although I do not think one needs peer-reviewed studies to put forth observations and formulate opinions in relation to them; I am most intrigued by individuals who believe the absence of scientific evidence is sufficient grounds to invalidate a premise, for this is not only lazy thinking, but presumptive.

Be careful about the concept of peer review.

What that means is the corporation that funded the "research" wanted a certain outcome so they found someone corrupt enough to deliver a study which achieves the objectives of the corporation.

This is well known to be happening.

Crime is the first thing you must have your eyes on... there is a lot of crime in this world and corporate level crime is so common (as is government) that you must be very aware of it from the beginning. Don't be so naive as to think things are honest if they come from government or corporations. Be intellectually "street wise". Anticipate fraud and corruption.

The only path to Truth is the Trivium Method:

Gather evidence with an open mind and do not allow censorship.
Block all "peer pressure" which can cause corruption. Think for yourself.
Share your wisdom with those who are receptive to it. (Red Pill others)

JamesSkepp · 2017-05-27T22:36:37+00:00

Thanks for giving bullshitters like NeoreactionSafe your support.

Scientific materialism excludes the metaphysical, and is therefore hard-pressed to explain the aspects of humanity it cannot empirically reduce to a measurement.

It's hard pressed, but not failing to do so. Compared to how old humanity is, modern science barely arrived on the scene and is still developing.

You wrote that science only works by un-proving things. That's not really accurate. Science explains things - by both proving something is true and that something is not true. Depends on what we're talking about. We disproved aether, we proved quarks. We disproved ulcers from food, we proved ulcers from bacteria.

By assumption you give rise to the idea that we should indulge in metaphysics or belief based ideas b/c science can't explain everything yet. You talk abut metaphysics - that's by definition the realm of imagination and it cannot be measured by science. Scolding science for not being able to explain stuff like that is absurd.

solvire · 2017-05-27T22:20:10+00:00

This is the age of relativism. What is necessary for "fact" is a critical mass of supporting information. All that is necessary to fabricate truth is to have the ability to create the metadata points which build that supporting information. What was it in brave new world. 65k recitations is a truth? What replaced metaphysics? Why not metadata.

Metadata gave us Trump. It works.

RPBulletDodger · 2017-05-27T23:41:32+00:00

Man, someone comes in here with actual logic and people just shit all over him.

Title	Critical Thinking & The Citation Needed Fallacy
Author	IllimitableMan
Upvotes	14
Comments	32
Date	May 27, 2017 9:02 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/6dq03s/critical_thinking_the_citation_needed_fallacy/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/critical-thinking-the-citation-needed-fallacy.43549 https://theredarchive.com/post/43549