Don’t tell people to “Google it.” That’s your job, not theirs (2016)
thelogicofscience.com
thelogicofscience.com
I claim that 1 * 1 = 1. I don't want to prove it. Terrence Howard not only claim that 1 * 1 = 2, but he also wants people to believe. As the person who wants things, it's Terrence's job to persuade people on what he wants.
https://twitter.com/terrencehoward/status/925754491881877507...
Terrence's burden to prove comes from the burden of want, and not from the fact that he has issued proclamations.
Saying "Google it!" tells me the person probably has no source, no idea how unreliable the information floating around on the web can be, and no understanding of how to find and appraise a good source.
Even on searching in Google Scholar, we sometimes find that the research literature often includes papers that offer divergent estimates and opinions.
This behavior shouldn't be rewarded.
But there's something really cool you could do that would educate the person you're talking to (both in terms of instructing them how to google, and communicating to them the key thing you've found out) -- all the while being polite and formal! --
Say something like "I used this search query [foo bar] to discover [result-x&y]." Do that enough times and you'll make the whole world a better place. :)
That is why it's best to just give a domain name AND describe a suitably qualified query.
If something's not worth your energy, just walk away. Don't stew so hard that you need a webcomic to reassure you that you're a well adjusted person that's obviously in the right and your opponent is a grotesque sea creature that doesn't any social etiquette.
When I make a claim, I’m not writing a thesis or going for my PhD. I’m just reciting some blurry memory that such and such may be so. People that challenge me to provide peer reviewed citations of such claim are not engaging in civil conversation.
But if you wanna be a great person who does his civic duty and more to improve mankind, do please help others out in the way I outlined elsewhere, tell them "I used the search query [foo bar] to discover [result-x&y]."
You're both answering their question, while teaching them to be helping themselves in the future! I think framing search queries for good results is a bit of an art, and a lot of folks here are really good at it -- please share this skill with the world!
Both of these things, when done in good faith, are moves that help the ignorant asker to learn. I've never been put off by a sincere request by someone to show them my work, so to speak. I don't think anyone should be put off by asking something like this sincerely, either.
It's also one of the most frustrating things to explain to someone when their "research" is wrong:
"Yes, I know he's called doctor in those early papers, he was struck off the register. No, it doesn't cause autism, that was made up. No, I'm not a doctor, but I'm not the one making the claims."
All those rebuttals require a diversion that wouldn't be necessary to explain if people were educated in how to assess sources.
I don't know what to do about it, because it manifests as a dubious presentation of crappy sources, but the explanation of what makes a credible source itself is a long and somewhat vague story:
- Other credible sources support it
- Independent sources support it
- Connects with existing models of the world
- History of being credible
- Incentives align, no obvious conflicts
All of those are things for which you can create an alternate universe. Your own network of outlets that support each other, your own flat-earth physics and lizardmen politics, and your own history.
Yes I can google stuff. But I want to open the door to bonus knowledge. Eg. "Oh you want to use the subprocess library but we do it a bit differently because of X and Y. Here's a link to where we do it in library Z."
The "burden of proof" might apply well to formal debates where a consistent set of participants are all acting good faith, but that's hardly the case in most online discussions. Even when people asking for sources are asking in good faith, it is unreasonable to jump into a conversation that you are not educated on and demand explanation from the person you disagree with.
This can be also a technique used to lure people into giving their private info.
Instead to ask on internet: Are you a republican white? and obtaining a standard "not your business" they claim that you are brown and socialist, expecting you to correct themselves and reply "not, I'm asian and will vote for X" or so.
This way they can obtain the info to classify you without you even taking notice of it. Is an old trick.
What must be taken in mind is that who you are is irrelevant for the discussion most of the time. Facts are either true, or false (or unknown), no matter who will say it.
The description of it as "harassment" is incomprehensible to me. Why post on a discussion board if you aren't willing to handle disagreement, and defend your claims?
TBH, if you want to convince me that someone who is disagreeing with you politely is acting in bad faith, you have an uphill battle.
Wasn't the whole point when Tim Berners-Lee begat this thing to connect researchers, so that knowledge could flourish?
Still TBD, TBL.
But if someone not at my company thinks that the best tool to write a web application in is a hand rolled web server framework in C99 then it's advantageous to me to let him fuck those guys up.
About anything where loss is internalized properly to the party participating I think it's best to let that party kill themselves over it.
Unless, of course, they'll pay you lots of cash to tell them the truth.
The same behaviour is desirable for the opposite reason in your high-trust environments. There you don't produce citations. You are hinting at the direction of truth. The hint is way more important than the cite.