Sources!

mrsamsa · 2013-11-19T01:18:29+00:00

Thanks for starting this discussion. I was planning on doing something similar but I had a slightly different suggestion: I was going to ask the mods to add "Provide sources for your claims" to be a new rule.

To clarify, I'm not sure breaking such a rule should be punished with a warning or banning, but it would simply be good if (after repeated attempts to get someone to provide a source), there could just be an official mod comment highlighting that a specific claim has been unsubstantiated.

That way it will hopefully either encourage red pillers to provide sources for claims, or at the very least it will give us a tool that prevents a fruitless line of discussion from descending into frustration and flamewars.

Importantly, I don't think there is a need to demand any particular quality of source. I personally would be happy with a simple logical argument. This is because the purpose of a source isn't to end all debate but rather to provide a springboard for the actual debate to begin. Once somebody has presented some substance to their claim (even if only a logical argument without scientific evidence), it at least gives us something to discuss, criticise, or agree on.

On your actual suggestions here though, I have issues with your last point:

No more complaining about a source being too old or too pop-psychology. If someone's article presents false information, find a way to disprove it based on actual data, not just based on the source magazine/website/journal's characteristics.

A source being too old is a valid methodological criticism - it is a criticism of external validity, which means that the results cannot be applied to the population it is being applied to. In other words, if red pillers are presenting a source from the 90s to support claims about how relationships work today, then that source can be dismissed on the basis of age.

The only workaround is if red pillers could argue that there have been no significant changes that could produce differences in results over that 20+ period of years, but doing all that work would mean it's easier just to present a more modern (thus applicable) source.

The bottom line being that if a red piller tries to support a claim about current relationships based on evidence from relationships of people that could be many red pillers' parents, then I personally consider such a claim unsubstantiated.

As for pop-psychology/science sources, I think it's valid to dismiss pop sources when they make no reference to actual research. If they make reference to research, then usually it's best just to cite the research that they base their conclusions on.

The problem is obviously that there is no peer review to publishing a book, so a pop science source is really no better than a blog, or even just a random person on the internet saying: "I believe X". I don't care if someone can find a single other person who also believes the same thing that they do - if that was all that was needed for evidence, red pillers could just cite each other rather than trying to find a book.

IRScientist · 2013-11-20T17:51:41+00:00

4 and 5 seem kind of contradictory to me. How am I supposed to scrutinize a source without considering its origins? I mean, The Huffington Post is not Nature. Is it not relevant that the journal you're quoting is cited as being "pseudo-scholarly"? This means it does everything in its power to appear legitimate, except actually being legitimate. Trying to disprove the data itself puts me in the position of disproving something that was never proven in the first place.

Let's say, someone publishes a book chock full of BS. Someone writes a review about this BS, referencing the book. Now, if I had the book in front of me I could probably tear it to shreds, but I don't.

The reality is, those proffering bad science spend a lot of time and effort making it look good. They provide sources (never mind that they often link to themselves). The publish is legitimate journals to bolster their credentials for when they get around to their crazy views (I'm looking at you, young earthers).

Also, why no rule suggesting people try and find a neutral source? Let's pick on Huffpo again. Let's say, I like the ideas in this Huffpo article! Instead of posting that for discussion, I would click whatever link is included (it's not like they produce their own stories) to see what the wording was like on that, because I know Huffpo has a liberal slant.

mrsamsa · 2013-11-27T07:27:44+00:00

No more complaining about a source being too old or too pop-psychology. If someone's article presents false information, find a way to disprove it based on actual data, not just based on the source magazine/website/journal's characteristics.

I've been thinking about this some more and I was hoping that the mods could give me some feedback on their thought processes.

My question is basically: is the age of an article the only threat to external validity that we're no longer allowed to bring up or are all threats to external validity no longer allowed? So if I make a claim about the way men in college behave and I link to an animal study or a study about women in prison, would someone be allowed to criticise my evidence on the basis that it's not necessarily applicable to the claim I'm making?

If the latter is allowed, then what possible reasoning is there to disallow discussion of whether age makes a paper inapplicable? It just makes no sense to me.

mrsamsa · 2013-12-02T14:47:49+00:00

Paid sources can be used if and only if the original poster includes a workaround so that everyone else can read and interpret the source's findings for themselves. No one is required to take your word about what a source really says.

So that newly published scientific highly reputable data is a no no.... ok

Title	Sources!
Author	PurplePillDebate
Upvotes	14
Comments	48
Date	November 19, 2013 12:25 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1qxrsd/sources/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/sources.286592 https://theredarchive.com/post/286592

Comments