And don't forget that these idiots always ask for peer reviewed research evidence, 90% of which is horseshit nowadays. It's not a genuine inquiry when they do this, it's liberal code for "go the fuck away".
Source: was published researcher.
Anecdote, direct experience and other evidence are far more valid. Qualitative data are generally superior.
It’s the appeal to authority fallacy at play, perhaps with the authority being an abstraction of the scientific process or unnamed practitioners thereof.
Quantitative data without honest qualitative analyses is useless. You could make the claim that ice cream eaters causes heatst roke without ever mentioning that your data shows there are more ice cream eaters during summer time.
And don't forget that these idiots always ask for peer reviewed research evidence, 90% of which is horseshit nowadays. It's not a genuine inquiry when they do this, it's liberal code for "go the fuck away".
Source: was published researcher.
Anecdote, direct experience and other evidence are far more valid. Qualitative data are generally superior.
It’s really less “code” and more like a debate trap.
Don’t reply and they’ve won on the basis that you look stupid inside the context of their bubble.
Reply even with the most airtight of sources and they will just challenge the voracity of it.
Even if they look stupid they can just appeal to one of their cheerleader friends to support their utter stupidity and contempt for truth.
The way to handle this, especially on Reddit is to ask for their sources first and don’t let up.
If they reply just continue to press on sourcing.
I’m sure there are people here who are lazy and don’t like to provide sourcing themselves and that’s fine.
But you know what’s more lazy than a unmotivated conservative? 95% of the left who have grown up coddled.
These people can’t be bothered to source basic website links let alone understand news sourcing and accurate science.
And yes. The replication crisis is real. Never debate modern science as it is a losing proposition.
I went with “how much ego do you have to demand a stranger to do work for you? Fuck off”
Or: "If you'd be interested the slightest in the truth, you'd research this yourself. I did and it changed my mind."
Veracity talks to the truth of something.
Voracity is the greediness of something. Think voracious.
Thanks. Maybe you can fill us in on the definition of pedantic.
To be fair most of the dogpile is reportable stuff or things that don’t need a response.
But yes, the lockout timer definitely makes the echo chamber far far worse.
Stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason for example.
It’s the appeal to authority fallacy at play, perhaps with the authority being an abstraction of the scientific process or unnamed practitioners thereof.
Quantitative data without honest qualitative analyses is useless. You could make the claim that ice cream eaters causes heatst roke without ever mentioning that your data shows there are more ice cream eaters during summer time.
I agree, speaking as another published researcher. My PhD dissertation was a qualitative study.
Same