[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 37 KB, 542x475, creator17549._QL80_TTD_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13358383 No.13358383 [Reply] [Original]

Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered. You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field? A college degree? In that field? Then your arguments are invalid. No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

Nope, still haven't.

>> No.13358390
File: 59 KB, 800x450, 18bt57aaw7ehgjpg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13358390

>> No.13358394

>>13358383
justin kuritzkes

>> No.13358398
File: 513 KB, 800x600, 1462327395994.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13358398

>> No.13358402

sounds like you lost an argument to somebody and are very salty about it

i feel for you, but this isn't literature

>> No.13358405

>>13358402
I saw the quote somewhere else and was amused by the mental image of the guy saying it.

>> No.13358407

I don't see that sort of behavior as often as I used to.

>> No.13358411

>>13358383
based

>> No.13358416

>>13358383
This is how a midwit argues. Especially embarassing when discussing hypothetical arguments. They take the absence of evidence as support for the hypothesis they assert.

>> No.13358417

>>13358407
Yeah I feel this type has receded a little. Kind of lost or obscured in the cacaphony of newer voices. This one was a kind of hyper-logical, positivist, smug atheist nerd voice but the uncertainty of its political stance got replaced by varieties of left-nerds and right-nerds that both share some of these qualities while rebuking or mocking them from their respective angles.

>> No.13358419

>>13358416
>This is how a midwit argues
Source?

>> No.13358420

>>13358383
Thomas Guénolé btfo

>> No.13358421

>>13358417
>while rebuking or mocking *other aspects of the type

>> No.13358436

>>13358416
I think it's a dishonest argument strategy, full stop. Lowkey gaslighting.

Kind of similar to the strategy of when someone attempts to conjure up an artificial fog of confusion / obfuscation implying this towering, foreboding monolith of discourse they're privy to and guard and *obviously* you don't understand but they're not going to bother to explain how.

>> No.13358445

>>13358436
>source, my ass.

>> No.13358453

CORRELATION.
*clap emoji*
DOES.
*clap emoji*
NOT.
*clap emoji*
EQUAL.
*clap emoji*
CAUSATION.

>> No.13358461

Absolutely no correlation can be made no matter how strong the reason because correlation does not equal causation. The temperature rises when the sun comes up but CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION so stop thinking the two are related.

>> No.13358462

>>13358383
Yeah, but how do you respond to this irl?

>> No.13358464

>>13358453
I like when they say this in response to an experimental study. It just proves to me how stupid they are.

>> No.13358470

>>13358462
As I said, it's gaslighting. They're setting conditions that you really can't say anything to them that they'd have to accept.

>> No.13358473

>>13358470
But in turn you one then just writes them off as a bullshitting gaslighter and that it's obviously really just about their pathetic little ego and never talk to them again.

>> No.13358476

>>13358470
They're not smart enough to gas light. They're just NPCs parroting what others have said. They don't actually understand what they are talking about which causes them to resort back to explicit, simpleton and superficial explanations by others. They think they are smart and refuse to yield. They're just midwits which makes them more dangerous than double digitters.

>> No.13358484

>>13358476
True, well I think of it as crude gaslighting, common to provincial and suburban boobs and amateurs. Just kind of throw empty phrases at you and try to win through sheer force. They're not gaslighting with any technical proficiency, just kind of blindly throwing stock phrases around and hoping you're even less knowledgeable on the matter than them, because in the similarly amateur company they keep, that's normally the case and works on their peers.

>> No.13358498

>>13358461
Should we ignore all correlation we see in the world?

>> No.13358553

>>13358461
All causes are correlations.
All things that are correlated have correlated causes (they share a cause somewhere near down the chain).
No thing in the eorld is the sole cause of anything in the world, everything has multiple causations.

>> No.13358560

>>13358553
>>13358498
But correlation does not equal causation so that means we can never know or discuss the cause of anything.

>> No.13358565
File: 8 KB, 256x300, 131908-004-A3DFC9A4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13358565

>>13358560
>>13358553
>>13358498
>>13358464
>>13358461
STOP THIS NONSENSE AT ONCE

>> No.13358567

>>13358560
If two things are correlated, it always mean that one of the causes for either is also directly the cause for both (and again, no-thing is the sole cause)—saying that 'correlation doesn't mean causation" doesn't mean that it never means causation; it's irrelevant, since correlation ALWAYS means there's a correlated cause. Correlation = deeper cause, not the cause of each other.

>> No.13358570

>>13358464
It also seems like they ignore what correlation actually means. It's like they think the alternative to causation, ie correlation, somehow proves that whatever two things are being discussed have no connection at all. Yes, correlation does not equal causation, but it sure as shit is something that needs to be explained.

>> No.13358575

>>13358565
Ought precedes being.
Nothing is perceived to be if we have no reason to observe 'it' as an is.
>Ought>Is.

>> No.13358598
File: 98 KB, 1080x1207, gigachad 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13358598

>source?
>the proof is in the pudding

>> No.13358616

>>13358598
A dessert is not proof, Gigachad.

>> No.13358632

>>13358394
hey i know that guy

>> No.13358662

>>13358632
in real life?

>> No.13358770

>>13358662
no i mean i watch his youtube channel

>> No.13358826

>>13358498
Yes. Absolutely yes. Now shut the fuck up and drink your onions you god damn nazi.

>> No.13358831
File: 65 KB, 250x250, sneedoran.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13358831

>>13358826
oh cool the faggot jannies updated the word filter. s 0 y

>> No.13358856

>>13358831
>updated
>implying this was done recently
Did nobody send you the Welcome to 4chan pamphlet when you started browsing this summer?

>> No.13359631

>>13358553
The Buddhists would call this interdependence.

>> No.13359649

Relativism?

>> No.13359775

>>13358416
The day I got asked for a source for my opinion was the day I left Leddit behind forever.

>> No.13359782

>>13358856
Testing
>s o y

>> No.13359786

>>13359782
>>13358856
Yeah, >>13358831 is just a retard.

>> No.13359792

>>13358419
Anne Nonnimus - This is how a midwit argues (2001) Pags 14-88

>> No.13359797
File: 8 KB, 300x180, 3248.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13359797

>muh foucault is aids ridden french faggot :'(

when will you bugmen realize that foucault was right about everything. science is about monopolizing truth in the hands of billion dollars industries (noone can conduct studies in his basement, science determines what is true therefore no individual can claim truth)

"sources, science and facts" are just another extension of liberal institutions.

>> No.13359823
File: 714 KB, 888x894, here's my fucking citation bitch.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13359823

>citations? Where are ht citations?

>> No.13359929

>>13358436
Usually this is someone trying to present themselves as this vague avatar of "science" because they associate their own assumptions and values with science. It's not a conscious tactic, it's just scientism and a lack of self awareness.
This is also the kind of person who thinks debate means citing logical fallacies and nothing else. Usually, like 90% of the time they don't even understand the little rule they've cited.
Extremely servile type of person.

>> No.13360020

>>13359929
these aren't people, they're straight up agents of the system, they surrendered their entire agency and free will to liberal institutions. These people are NOT human. They cannot produce a single original thought nor do they have free will.

>> No.13360032

Why need a source when my argument is deductive and entails from its premises exactly? ;^)

>> No.13360054

science is a cult and peer reviewing is the evidence.

>> No.13360066

>>13358498
>>13358553
>>13358560
Causation is frankly an unclear thing and in most cases hard to establish. We're used to wield it intuitively in our discourses but when it comes to proving it we're often at a loss.

The short answer is you can try to "build back" causation from empirical observations by forming hypotheses and invalidating them through careful designed experiment. But it is always going to rest on flimsy ground. Scientific knowledge is highly contextual and transitory, and that applies nowhere most than in the realm of causal study.

>> No.13360074

>>13358567
The causality relation can be more complicated than that, all the more so than there can be several causes to a single thing, and that in any given instance it's possible that not all the causes will be at play. Let's not even get started with phenonemon where the effect feeds back into its cause.

>> No.13360083

>>13360032
Then you need sources for your premises my fellow jew :^)

>> No.13360326 [DELETED] 

Are there a lot of good rogue pvp specs?

>> No.13360336

>>13360326
lol

>> No.13360362

I think you guys are mistaking the subject of OP right now.
Yes, OP talked about causation. But the problem of causation itself is a really difficult philosophical subject. It's one of the main reason Kant wrote the Critique of Pure Reason, and some other philosophers like Carnap, Reichenbach, and Karl Popper were trying to figure it out. I even saw John McDowell's answer to this.
But OP isn't just about this topic.
Basedboy's actions are working to establish a barrier as difficult as possible, or even impossible, to justify his argument. Cases like "you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered.", and several mentions of "Source".
It seem to be OP trying to show which people are extremely perverse in the debate.
However, I somehow disagree with OP. Sure it would be bad if it were always used. However, it is questionable whether it should not be used all the time. I think it is obvious in some cases there are times when asking Source and raising Causation problem should be used; just like Socrates asking Thrasymachus what is the definition of justice is for him.

>> No.13360367

>>13360362
>Basedboy's actions
My phone literally autocorrect basedboy as basedboy. What is wrong with this phone

>> No.13360442

>>13360367
>autocorrect basedboy as basedboy.
Soiboy... as basedboy.

>> No.13360452

>tfw every liberal arts study thinks they are the Chicago school of Sociology

>> No.13360453

>>13360362
I'd like to see a source.

>> No.13360466

>>13358383
First time visiting /lit/. See neurotic post dissembling modern "online debate." Dis Gun B GUD...

>> No.13360485

>>13360453
Now we are talking.

>> No.13360501

>>13358383
This + just looking up all possible logical fallacies and pointing them out is truly the patricians way of online debate, especially when you claim that everything is an appeal to authority reducing the entire debate to absurdity

>> No.13360564
File: 39 KB, 600x621, hillary-pepe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13360564

Drumphies feeling the heat?

>> No.13360577

>>13358383
>Do you have a degree in that field? A college degree? In that field? Then your arguments are invalid.
Do you have a source on that?

>> No.13360581

>>13358570
Can you explain the correlation between pirates and the global temperature increases?

>> No.13360669

>>13360501
>especially when you claim that everything is an appeal to authority reducing the entire debate to absurdity

I really like this trick. Appeal to sources is often indeed of form of appeal to authority.

>> No.13360675

>>13360581
The thought of pirates makes sailors sweat which in turns increases the atmosphere's temperature.

>> No.13360852

>>13360669
Except they aren't. Sources have a specific methodology that allows anyone to replicate the experiment so they can see the results for themselves if they don't trust whoever said it. Sources are, literally, not appeals to authority.

>> No.13361542

>>13360669
BASED retard

>> No.13361577

>>13360020
Based

>> No.13361614

>>13360852
They very much are. You're trusting the source to have maintained proper rigor and be without bias.
In smaller cases, yes, you can reproduce the experiment without any problem, but nowadays? When most experiments cost millions of dollars to run? Where experiments being financed by people not wanting to learn, but willing to pay for a specific answer is entirely believable?

>> No.13361702

>>13358383
I reject your epistemology, nerd.

>> No.13361726

>>13358498
You can infer pragmatic utility from correlations if it can be dependably replicated, has precision and predictive capacity. Some correlations are completely meaningless, useless and misleading. Midwits take empiricism too far.

>> No.13361733

>>13360852
>Sources have a specific methodology
>Implying the stats weren't p-hacked.

>> No.13361742

>>13361614
You can check the study for yourself if you believe it's biased, and point out how it's biased. That's the proper way to attack an argument that uses a source, because using an appeal to authority as a counteraegument is besides the point.
And yes, some problems are millions of dollars in terms of cost, which is why, again, you have to critique the study itself, it's methodology and so on, and not just claim "hurr, argument from authority" like some moron.

>> No.13361756

>>13360852
>Sources have a specific methodology that allows anyone to replicate the experiment

Well. Yes and no. Depends on the source. We can be certain SOME methodologies are completely accurate and true, but we also know for a FACT that many times the source's methodologies aren't published at all (like the creator of a survey not releasing the questions alongside the statistical information).

Sometimes the questions are paraphrased as well, which invalidates the release of the survey questions completely.

So no, the methodology is not specific many times, if it is even released at all.

Look into social statistics. :3

>> No.13361762

I support this thread.

>> No.13361780

>>13360852
70% of scientists have tried and failed to reproduce another scientists experiments. 50% have tried and failed to repeat THEIR OWN experiments.

>> No.13361784

>>13361780
Source?

>> No.13361797

>>13361780
In social sciences this is a huge problem, especially since, for a particular point in time, you can only produce the given societal conditions (which can't be reproduced like in Physics) once.

Especially for time-series analyses, which require long periods which cannot be replicated either. This invalidates some economic observations depending on how much they relate to factors that have changed.

Think twice next time you read a chart or statistical findings, it might just be complete bullshit. :3

>> No.13361811

>>13361784
LOL ironic.
But it was a 2016 survey of 1500 scientists done by Nature international weekly journal of science. Similar results from a survey done by the American society for cell biology.

>> No.13361812

>>13361797
Source?

>> No.13361820

>>13358417
see >>13361812
>>13361784
>>13360453

>> No.13361819

>>13361797
Yes it is particularly bad in social sciences, but the survey I'm referring to included mostly hard sciences (chemistry, physics, engineering, medicine, earth/environment and biology)

>> No.13361836

>>13361819
Any survey falls under the observations within social science, you moron.

Collecting surveys, cavassing, etc. these are all forms of social science. Regardless of if it relates to a hard science or not.

Ahahaha… holy shit I can't believe you just said that. Embarrassing.

>> No.13361841

>>13361733
Depends on the field.

>>13361756
Sure, but in those cases you can point out those deficiencies in the study, instead of claiming "appeal to authority" like a moron.

>>13361780
That's such a vague statement I doubt it has any validity, because that would vary wildly depending on the field.

>> No.13361849

>>13361841
>you can point out those deficiencies in the study
Not if they weren't released... 'moron'.

I never claimed appeal to authority.

>> No.13361859
File: 133 KB, 1199x630, mega.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13361859

YOUR (((SOURCES))) END WHERE MUH FEELINGS BEGIN YOU LEFTYPOL BIGOT

>> No.13361861

>>13361841
>That's such a vague statement I doubt it has any validity, because that would vary wildly depending on the field
It was self reported by scientists in the fields I said here >>13361819

>> No.13362071

putting up strawmen, the thread
cmon /lit, you're better than this

>> No.13362305

>>13358436
>>13358470
>>13358473
>>13358476
>>13358484
Are you guys sure you're using 'gaslighting,' in the proper context? It usually refers to denial of manipulation, being in a conversation with two people say, and one points to you and says to the other, 'Don't listen to him, he's an idiot,' then gives you a big smile, slaps your shoulder and says, 'I'm just kidding, dude, why so serious?' The demanding of sources of information isn't really anything. If you pull a statistic out of your ass with no credible source to back it up you're just making a fool of yourself.

>> No.13362376

>>13361849
You can point out they were never released, moron.

>> No.13362435

>>13361780
This sounds bad but mostly it means that research is generally bleeding edge stuff. Nobody is willing to pay to repeat experiments that they know will work. There are much more numerous and deeper problems with research science and "peer review" today but the lack of replication is technically not really the issue.

>> No.13363525

>>13362435
Although you are basically right in premises; I don't agree with your conclusion. Because, in fact, the lack of replication, IS the issue.

>> No.13363975

>>13358407
The average IQ of someone arguing on the Internet has declined quite a bit.

The "Source? Source?" guy is himself dumber than the pre-WWW days.

>> No.13363996

>>13361542
I'm not a retard, I'm a troll masquerading as a skeptic. These "debates" are always meaningless, they don't change people's mind, and they don't change how people act, they're merely a form of aggressive, mutual, oral masturabtion at a distance. Might as well have fun with it while I'm at it.

>> No.13364004

>>13360852
Most "sources" are just random articles in some random journal. In most cases you didn't bother to read the source, not to mention assessing its methodology. And it's well known a good proportion of professional scientists are methodologically cucked, it's even incentivized by the publication system.

>> No.13364008

>>13359775
>even being on Reddit in the first place
You deserved this, but at least you realised your mistake.

>> No.13364031

>>13361614
An appeal to authority implies that you appeal to the supposed quality a—let's say professor—should produce, and not to what the professor actually has produced. The fallacy of "appealing to authority" is that you give the same authority to all doctors/professor/engineers/lawyers/etc,, as if being any of these automatically gives authority, when they're just one of the correlated causes to each person's authority, oh no...

A professor, on average, has more authority than X about Y—but being a professor doesn't make you by default AN authority on Y.

>> No.13364039

>>13364031
The fallacy doesn't mean there can't be actual authorities on subjects, or that appealing to this actual authority is a fallacy (automatically).

>> No.13364057

>>13362435
> Nobody is willing to pay to repeat experiments that they know will work.

The point is you don't know they will work unless you've actually tried to replicate them. And often when you do, it turns out they don't really work.
Now even a valid study won't be replicable 100% of the time, but being unable to replicate say, 50% of the most important findings in a given fields is a really serious problem.

>> No.13364070

>Causality thread
Nice

>> No.13364255

>>13360852
You've never been in a research environment. Statistics aren't in their infancy anymore. You can hack many different conclusion you want with the relevant fudging and a bit of creative presentation.
Also the large majority of papers are not anywhere near this type of standard of replication.

>> No.13364835

>>13358383
What the fuck was happened in this thread?
You guys become the very thing OP wanted to mock about

>> No.13365063

>>13358419
Kek