You didn’t make a complaint, you asked a question.
And since I had already stated in the post that I wasn’t going to go into the details and that they could be easily verified with a little research, you should be grateful that I bothered to respond to your already-dealt-with question rather than just calling you a moron.
I’m not interested enough to research anything on my own.
You seem to have a poor model of other people’s minds that leads you to be too quick to dismiss others as morons. By itself, this is understandable, as understanding how other people think can be hard. But you stubbornly refuse all help to improve your model, and reject advise on how to communicate your points better.
This is unfortunate because your article is well written and introduces an interesting question. So it would be good to support with background sources. Presumably you have references where you learned about the examples you give, it should not be hard to actually cite them, to give your readers the benefits of your research. This would give your argument more credibility, and allow to reach a wide audience, as you provide an overview that is easily approachable by those with casual interest, and technical references would satisfy those who want to dig deeper. And, of course, citations would distinguish your article from something that someone just made up.
The problem with expecting readers to use Google is that they may find bad or irrelevant references. You should choose and present the reference that best supports your points, and not make your readers wonder if your point is really unsupported or if they just have not found the right support yet.
You seem to have a poor model of other people’s minds that leads you to be too quick to dismiss others as morons.
No, I have a good understanding of other people’s arguments, and of the nature of good arguments, that lets me accurately dismiss others as morons.
And, of course, citations would distinguish your article from something that someone just made up.
What distinguishes things people say from the truth is the fact that true things are actually true—that is, there are aspects of objective reality that show the claims to be correct.
No one can free you from the responsibility of checking claims—both others’ and your own—against reality. How would you know I wasn’t just fabricating the sources, or citing sources that were themselves based on fabrications?
What distinguishes things people say from the truth is the fact that true things are actually true—that is, there are aspects of objective reality that show the claims to be correct.
When a person systematically believes things that are true, it involves a causal chain from that truth to that person’s cognitive state. While it is true that the truth is a cause of the true belief, one should not dismiss the intermediate links in the chain. In this case, an important link is citation of the sources that you, presumably, have already gathered and read in order to be able to write your article. This allows readers to distinguish in their own minds, in a manner correlated to how reality distinguishes truth from falsity, well supported arguments ultimately based on empirical evidence, from nonsense theories with no grounding in reality.
No one can free you from the responsibility of checking claims
That misses the point, which is to tell people where they can look to verify the claim. It is not like the mere existence of a citation makes your claims correct, the cited source still needs to be evaluated.
How would you know I wasn’t just fabricating the sources, or citing sources that were themselves based on fabrications?
I would expect to get to a first hand account of the actual observations within a few steps of following citations. (If I don’t, I would worry that sources themselves are not grounded in reality.) I would judge an undisputed account of first hand observations in a refereed journal of the appropriate topic to be unlikely to be a fabrication. Though, I would expect the original article I am evaluating to at least show me the first step of this process, since it is so easy for anyone who has actually based their discussion on relevant sources and is therefore likely to be correct.
In this case, an important link is citation of the sources that you, presumably, have already gathered and read in order to be able to write your article.
You can’t offer citations for spending more than a decade researching, reading, and communicating/speaking to experts about a topic.
There is no source to cite. I am a source.
which is to tell people where they can look to verify the claim.
I’ve already done that. I even provided a specific source people could turn to if they wished. Further confirmation is easily found via web search.
You can’t offer citations for spending more than a decade researching, reading, and communicating/speaking to experts about a topic. There is no source to cite. I am a source.
Utter horseshit. I’ve spent slightly less than a decade researching, reading, and communicating with experts about methods for proteomics, and also applied Bayesian statistics. On these subjects, I too am a source—and I can drown you in citations. In this day and age, anyone with a legitimate claim to be a source on a subject ought to be able to do likewise.
And I can do that. But I have no interest for hunting down citations for information which you can verify for yourself with a trivial investment of time and energy.
The facts I referenced don’t require access to university-library-level facilities to locate; if you can read the post, you have Internet access and a browser capable of taking you to any number of search engines suitable for the task.
As for the reason why you should consider the statements worth attempting to verify: I said them. Even if they were wrong (which they are not), finding evidence of that and displaying it would be quite a coup for anyone who dislikes me enough to want to eliminate me from this site. Fact-checking me should be a matter of course.
And I can do that. But I have no interest for hunting down citations for information which you can verify for yourself with a trivial investment of time and energy.
I find it interesting that you consider it trivial for others to verify the information with a web search, but, for you, it is a matter of “hunting down citations”. It should be easier for the expert to find the sources.
finding evidence of that and displaying it would be quite a coup for anyone who dislikes me enough to want to eliminate me from this site
I, for one, am not interested in driving you from this site. I would rather see you become a better contributor, more capable of explaining your ideas without gratuitously offending everyone, without calling people morons for asking questions when it should be easy for you to just answer the question. This is why I said earlier that it is unfortunate that you chose not to support a well written article with citations.
I, for one, am not interested in driving you from this site. I would rather see you become a better contributor
Seconded. Nonetheless, in the absence of any evidence that this is likely to happen before we all get turned into tiny molecular smiley faces by a rogue AI, I would settle for a “Don’t show me comments by [Annoyance]” option in my preferences. The signal-to-noise ratio is generally just too low to be worth it, yet I find the noise sucking me in anyway.
It should be easier for the expert to find the sources.
The sources from which I learned the information would be difficult for me to locate, even if I remembered all of them.
It’s trivially easy for you to find sources that confirm my claim, though. It’s the difference between sources and the sources.
I would rather see you become a better contributor, more capable of explaining your ideas without gratuitously offending everyone,
Given the choice between accurately relaying the truth, and refraining from offending, I prefer to accurately relay the truth. Sometimes offending is required.
And I can do that. But I have no interest for hunting down citations for information which you can verify for yourself with a trivial investment of time and energy.
I think you forget the economics of the burden of time investment. You spent the energy to write the original article, a small amount of additional energy for source material would have greatly increased any expected effects (that I can imagine you holding to originally write said article), and overall it is far more effecient for one person—namely, you, the author, to invest some additional energy into your article, rather than having every potential reader go and wastefully recapitulate the search on their own.
So not only is your approach rude, it is also ineffecient.
I choose to interpret this as a serious question rather than a casual insult.
If I did have personal experience, I would be unlikely to have been able to write the post. I suppose I could have had a relative who was lobotomized, although with the passage of time that’s not very likely.
The answer is no, I don’t. I merely have access to the experiences and data gathered by others.
You didn’t make a complaint, you asked a question.
And since I had already stated in the post that I wasn’t going to go into the details and that they could be easily verified with a little research, you should be grateful that I bothered to respond to your already-dealt-with question rather than just calling you a moron.
Then either accept my claims or shut up.
You seem to have a poor model of other people’s minds that leads you to be too quick to dismiss others as morons. By itself, this is understandable, as understanding how other people think can be hard. But you stubbornly refuse all help to improve your model, and reject advise on how to communicate your points better.
This is unfortunate because your article is well written and introduces an interesting question. So it would be good to support with background sources. Presumably you have references where you learned about the examples you give, it should not be hard to actually cite them, to give your readers the benefits of your research. This would give your argument more credibility, and allow to reach a wide audience, as you provide an overview that is easily approachable by those with casual interest, and technical references would satisfy those who want to dig deeper. And, of course, citations would distinguish your article from something that someone just made up.
The problem with expecting readers to use Google is that they may find bad or irrelevant references. You should choose and present the reference that best supports your points, and not make your readers wonder if your point is really unsupported or if they just have not found the right support yet.
No, I have a good understanding of other people’s arguments, and of the nature of good arguments, that lets me accurately dismiss others as morons.
What distinguishes things people say from the truth is the fact that true things are actually true—that is, there are aspects of objective reality that show the claims to be correct.
No one can free you from the responsibility of checking claims—both others’ and your own—against reality. How would you know I wasn’t just fabricating the sources, or citing sources that were themselves based on fabrications?
When a person systematically believes things that are true, it involves a causal chain from that truth to that person’s cognitive state. While it is true that the truth is a cause of the true belief, one should not dismiss the intermediate links in the chain. In this case, an important link is citation of the sources that you, presumably, have already gathered and read in order to be able to write your article. This allows readers to distinguish in their own minds, in a manner correlated to how reality distinguishes truth from falsity, well supported arguments ultimately based on empirical evidence, from nonsense theories with no grounding in reality.
That misses the point, which is to tell people where they can look to verify the claim. It is not like the mere existence of a citation makes your claims correct, the cited source still needs to be evaluated.
I would expect to get to a first hand account of the actual observations within a few steps of following citations. (If I don’t, I would worry that sources themselves are not grounded in reality.) I would judge an undisputed account of first hand observations in a refereed journal of the appropriate topic to be unlikely to be a fabrication. Though, I would expect the original article I am evaluating to at least show me the first step of this process, since it is so easy for anyone who has actually based their discussion on relevant sources and is therefore likely to be correct.
You can’t offer citations for spending more than a decade researching, reading, and communicating/speaking to experts about a topic.
There is no source to cite. I am a source.
I’ve already done that. I even provided a specific source people could turn to if they wished. Further confirmation is easily found via web search.
Utter horseshit. I’ve spent slightly less than a decade researching, reading, and communicating with experts about methods for proteomics, and also applied Bayesian statistics. On these subjects, I too am a source—and I can drown you in citations. In this day and age, anyone with a legitimate claim to be a source on a subject ought to be able to do likewise.
And I can do that. But I have no interest for hunting down citations for information which you can verify for yourself with a trivial investment of time and energy.
The facts I referenced don’t require access to university-library-level facilities to locate; if you can read the post, you have Internet access and a browser capable of taking you to any number of search engines suitable for the task.
As for the reason why you should consider the statements worth attempting to verify: I said them. Even if they were wrong (which they are not), finding evidence of that and displaying it would be quite a coup for anyone who dislikes me enough to want to eliminate me from this site. Fact-checking me should be a matter of course.
I find it interesting that you consider it trivial for others to verify the information with a web search, but, for you, it is a matter of “hunting down citations”. It should be easier for the expert to find the sources.
I, for one, am not interested in driving you from this site. I would rather see you become a better contributor, more capable of explaining your ideas without gratuitously offending everyone, without calling people morons for asking questions when it should be easy for you to just answer the question. This is why I said earlier that it is unfortunate that you chose not to support a well written article with citations.
Seconded. Nonetheless, in the absence of any evidence that this is likely to happen before we all get turned into tiny molecular smiley faces by a rogue AI, I would settle for a “Don’t show me comments by [Annoyance]” option in my preferences. The signal-to-noise ratio is generally just too low to be worth it, yet I find the noise sucking me in anyway.
The sources from which I learned the information would be difficult for me to locate, even if I remembered all of them.
It’s trivially easy for you to find sources that confirm my claim, though. It’s the difference between sources and the sources.
Given the choice between accurately relaying the truth, and refraining from offending, I prefer to accurately relay the truth. Sometimes offending is required.
Giving citations would have relayed truth and avoided offending. It follows that offending, in this case, was not “required”.
I think you forget the economics of the burden of time investment. You spent the energy to write the original article, a small amount of additional energy for source material would have greatly increased any expected effects (that I can imagine you holding to originally write said article), and overall it is far more effecient for one person—namely, you, the author, to invest some additional energy into your article, rather than having every potential reader go and wastefully recapitulate the search on their own.
So not only is your approach rude, it is also ineffecient.
Apparently, Annoyance knew what he’s doing when he chose his nickname.
Wow, do you have personal experience with lobotomies or something? ;-)
I choose to interpret this as a serious question rather than a casual insult.
If I did have personal experience, I would be unlikely to have been able to write the post. I suppose I could have had a relative who was lobotomized, although with the passage of time that’s not very likely.
The answer is no, I don’t. I merely have access to the experiences and data gathered by others.
Research shows that wink emoticons convey sarcasm.