/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10890285]

Why is it that when you are arguing with a pseudo intellectual, and you post a rational argument that serves as the philosophical structure of your side of the debate, they will write "citation needed" (or something akin to it) as though that is in any way relevant to the debate or the argument?
Where does this absolutely misguided idea come from, where any assertion in an argument must be taken from some other academics published work, and you can't make normative statements from empirical data or rational arguments and logical connections between patterns of data in an argument.
There is a great image that I don't have saved of a picture of a bald guy with greentext going "do you have a source for that? You can't make normative statements from empirical data. Do you have a bachelors degree? In that field?" That perfectly encapsulates the type of pseud I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.10890288]

>>10890285
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.10890323]

>>10890285
>when you are arguing
>your side of the debate
>relevant to the debate
>any assertion in an argument
>rational arguments
>patterns of data in an argument
• an argument is not a "debate"
• a debate is not an "argument"

[Anonymous No.10890328]

>>10890285
It's an internet discussion, so no one's really in a hurry, why not take your time and show that you're not pulling it all out of your ass?
And if you don't have a source, just say "No source, this is an original idea" and then defend it with facts and logic (protip: anecdotes of confirmation bias don't count).
Also, it could be you only assume they disagree, when in actually they agree with you and just want to know the source so they can use it to convince others who disagree.

tl;dr: you're the pseud
Retards sometimes don't know they're retarded

[Anonymous No.10890344]

>>10890285
Because most people are too quick to say something they believe is true and often isn't, and even if it is it may be recent or obscure. Since this is a science board, it is perfectly ok to ask for a source. Most times I see the [citation needed], its when someone spouts a completely ridiculous statement and refuses to back up his assertion with data, prompting people to derisively request a source.
There are things people insist are true and when called out on their views, turn to insults. How are people supposed to quickly filter out the ones that are clearly not participating in the discussion in a constructive manner? Satirically engaging the subject. If a proper source/proof/demonstration is presented, the problem ends then and there.

[Anonymous No.10890353]

>>10890328
The is no source or citation for normative statements or moral objections you pseud, that's the point. The fact that you are automatically trying to defend this behavior shows insecurity. No one said anything about anecdotes being what I'm talking about.
You are the pseud trying to defend pseudo-intellectual argument tactics. You couldn't even abstract properly to understand what I'm talking about. Retards sometimes don't know they're retarded.

[Anonymous No.10890372]

>>10890285
>normative statements
philosophag buzzphrase for "unfounded bullshit opinions"

[Anonymous No.10890378]

>>10890372
Pseudo intellectual detected

[Anonymous No.10890382]

>>10890378
butthurt normie detected

[Anonymous No.10890390]

>>10890382
Literal retard, let me explain why you're a pseud
You say "normative statements are bullshit philosophy buzzphrases that are actually unfounded bullshit opinions".
That means you are asserting "non normative phrases are the only things of value that should be considered".
That means you are making a normative statement that the world should only consider non normative statements as valuable in rational discourse.
Meaning you are trying to use a normative statement to claim normative statements don't matter.
And you did not immediately realize this which automatically indicates you are a PSEUD

[Anonymous No.10890395]

>>10890390
>you are asserting «imaginary assertion here»
>you are making a normative statement
>you are trying to use a normative statement
>you did not immediately realize
no U

[Anonymous No.10890414]

>>10890382

[Anonymous No.10890423]

>>10890344
>If a proper source/proof/demonstration is presented, the problem ends then and there.
Ya... no it doesn't. lol

[Anonymous No.10890669]

>>10890285
Evidence for the insane inaccurate shit you might spout.
If both are learned on a subject, you need evidence to back up something you introduce that has not been heard before.
Cite your source faggot.

[Anonymous No.10890705]

>>10890285
I really hope this is a joke post.

>Reeee just accept my assertions and anecdotes

[Anonymous No.10890712]

>>10890353
>The is no source or citation for normative statements or moral objections you pseud, that's the point.

No one has any reason to give a shit what your morals are.

[Anonymous No.10891464]

>>10890328
>Miss his point entirely
>Call him retarded
When this board gets a mandatory IQ test you'll take it with such a smug look on your face which gradually turns into confusion as you get banned due to your low score

[Anonymous No.10891475]

>>10890669
Uuh can you cite a source which explains why people need to have citations? I'm not listening to a random internet retard's opinions nomsayin LMAO

[Anonymous No.10891494]

>>10890712
>No one has any reason to give a shit what your morals are.
source?
>>10891464
source?

[Anonymous No.10891495]

>>10890328
>>10890344
>>10890669
>>10890705
>>10890712
Everyone here just made the statement that you must cite a source in arguments and debates, but didn't cite a source.

[Anonymous No.10891499]

>>10891495
source:4channel.org

[Anonymous No.10891504]

>>10890285
>That perfectly encapsulates the type of pseud I'm talking about.
It's also a perfect straw man for anyone you disagree with.

[Anonymous No.10891513]

>>10890285
Short version, they're retarded. They have no will or capacity to think big picture, and make connections on their own. They're pretty much automatons.

[Anonymous No.10891531]

>>10891513
>unlike me, the anonymous poster said with a smug grin of self assuredness
>yes unlike those pseuds I am a TRUE intellectual, he mused while toking on his e-cigarette and munching from a bag of spicy hot cheetos, his fingers stained orange
>little did anon know he had terminal brain cancer...

[Anonymous No.10891533]

>>10890285
>from empirical data
You have to cite that data.

[Anonymous No.10891547]

>>10890285
I "source" the shit out of goofballs and shills that I hate, not because I'm interested in what they have to say, but because it costs less energry for me to type "source" than for them to dig up the sources for their retarded mainstream arguments. It's an effective strategy to get your enemies to waste more energy than you do in a conflict that will persist for years.

[Anonymous No.10891550]

>>10891531
I actually exist in a constant state of disgust, disappointment, and pushed way back in my mind, horror.

[Anonymous No.10892124]

>>10891533
Do you have a source for that?

[Anonymous No.10892791]

>>10890712
If you're unable to counter an argument without going "no one cares about you're opinion" then you've lost the argument, you pseud.

[Anonymous No.10892795]

>>10891504
It's not a straw man if it's an accurate depiction.

[Anonymous No.10892861]

>>10890353
>The is no source or citation for normative statements or moral objections you pseud, that's the point.
I already said that in the post you replied to. See the second sentence
>if you don't have a source, just say "No source, this is an original idea" and then defend it with facts and logic
Retards sometimes don't know they're retarded. Part of the problem is they never learned to read. Maybe that's why they don't understand how sources work.

[Anonymous No.10892877]

>>10891495
>Everyone here just made the statement that you must cite a source in arguments and debates
Interestingly enough, the very first post you linked actually says you don't always need to have a source.
All you've shown is that you argue with posts without even reading them. You should be ashamed.

[Anonymous No.10892879]

>>10892861
So you're talking about yourself then, because within the context of the post it is obvious that it is an original idea if it is a normative statement you pseud retard. A normative statement automatically implies you're talking about your idea, fucking idiot.
Stop pretending to be smart when you're clearly not smart.

[Anonymous No.10892896]

It's because of Wikipedia, anon. Wikipedia only takes secondary sources because it saves them the headache of having to police primary sources. I'll give you an example: Alexander Solzhenitsyn (I do not care enough to spell his name correctly) described his eye witness accounts, and transcribed the testimonies of other victims of, Stalins mass purges that killed some 50 million people. Commies say that because Solzhenitsyn was not a Stalinist, however, his testimony cannot be used as he is biased. This is obviously horse shit in this specific case, but it requires someone to play referee, and in more technical subjects this is hard.

So to cut the shit out, they only allow secondary sources so they can say
>X said Y...
Not
>Y...

Retards take Wikipedia for more than it is and assume every statement has to have an impartial source backing it up. The obvious flaw in this is that every source has to go back to a primary source eventually.

[Anonymous No.10892913]

>>10892879
>i shouldn't have to back claims up with relevant facts if they're normative

[Anonymous No.10892918]

Oh look its another samefagging schizo thread.

[Anonymous No.10893114]

>>10890285
It's because they haven't been taught to think critically. They've been taught to trust testimony from established authority figures, as opposed to being capable of proper deductive, inductive, or even abductive inquiry independent of an expert.

[Anonymous No.10893548]

>>10892918
Paranoid.

[Anonymous No.10894131]

>>10892877

[Anonymous No.10895208]

>>10890395
>normietard doesn't even know he's a normiertard

[Anonymous No.10896112]

>>10890285

It usually isn't used literally but rather as a "humorous" way of saying that you need to provide more evidence for your argument.

[Anonymous No.10896114]

>>10893114
>testimony from established authority figures
found the misanthropic social outcast

[Anonymous No.10896131]

>>10896114
Damn senpai, got me. You still didn't refute my argument.

[Anonymous No.10896155]

>>10891495
It’s an axiom, you fucking mong. If you don’t like it, don’t play.

[Anonymous No.10896160]

>>10892791
>If you're unable to counter an argument without going "no one cares about you're opinion" then you've lost the argument, you pseud.

There is no argument, you pseud. Moral assertions are impossible to verify or disprove unless you both accept an axiom like utilitarianism or something.

[Anonymous No.10897426]

>>10896131
>my argument
>they haven't been taught «this»
>they've been taught «that»
That is not an «argument» Grasshopper, that is an unfounded «opinion».

[Anonymous No.10897428]

>>10892791
There is apparently a widespread misunderstanding of what constitutes an «argument» on this board.

[Anonymous No.10897435]

Keep playing chess with pigeons. No matter how masterfully you beat them, they'll still shit on the board, kick over the pieces, and fly away like nothing happened. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.10897449]

>>10897435
you need better pigeon friends

[Anonymous No.10897608]

>>10891547
Only level-headed person in thread so far, but also the most nonchalantly and shamelessly evil.

[Anonymous No.10897644]

>>10890285
It really depends on the claim you are making.

If you say opioid epidemics have doubled in the last decade, I'd need a source.

If you say people are less likely to spend money in a recession, that might also need a source. It seems really obvious, but you really have no evidence for the claim.

If you say any wave can be decomposed into a series of sinusoids with different phases and frequencies, that might be okay without a source. It's not that obvious, but it can be worked out mathematically and there's no worries about where your data is coming from or how it's being analyzed. You could could cite a source for it though to be nice.

On 4chan I don't think it matters. People probably only ask you to cite stuff because you make insane claims that are obviously false.

[Anonymous No.10898612]

>>10897644
I told my girlfriend that "human rights" are neither universally acknowledged nor derived objectively, and she kept nagging me to "cite a source" for that claim. What should I tell somebody like that?

[Anonymous No.10898622]

>>10898612
She belongs to the kitchen, retard.

[Anonymous No.10898649]

>>10898612
>"human rights" are neither universally acknowledged
but they are

[Anonymous No.10898676]

>>10898612
>What should I tell somebody like that?
To show that human rights aren't universally acknowledged, you only need an example of people that don't acknowledge human rights (whatever that means).
To show that they are not derived objectively, you need only show some examples of conflicting value systems.

>cite a source
doesn't mean "find someone else who agrees with you" like our retarded OP seems to believe.
It means support your claim with some verifiable facts -- typically the "verifiable" part implies you will refer to some other works unless you did your very own research entirely from scratch.

[Anonymous No.10898727]

>>10898676
I know what I could have done, but I agree with OP in spirit. Some things are just so glaringly obvious that they should be common sense, and arguing with people that always play the "I don't believe that" game are exasperating to deal with.
>>10898649
Didn't the USSR notoriously abstain from that UN human rights agreement?

[Anonymous No.10898742]

>>10890285
>Where does this absolutely misguided idea come from, where any assertion in an argument must be taken from some other academics published work, and you can't make normative statements from empirical data or rational arguments and logical connections between patterns of data in an argument.

To tell you how stupid this is, there are plenty of meme stories about how people used sneaky techniques to get their words on the books. For instance "Quark." Supposedly, the guy used the word in a conference talk, which got written up in the conference proceedings, which he was then able to cite later when he called it a quark in a serious journal. Everyone saw the circular loop he built, and they were all ok with it, but if he had just gone straight for it and tried to call it a quark in the journal paper, then everyone would have been like, "NO NO NO!!! You didn't build the pointless meme loop before you called it that!"

[Anonymous No.10898800]

>>10898742
Everything you wrote is retarded. He cited himself because he had previously given a talk on the subject, that's it. Journal articles are hard to write and typically are years in the making. Typically, you attend conferences first to talk to other scientists on a shorter time frame.

>>10898727
Isn't it a little disingenuous to assume that anyone who doesn't buy your obvious assumptions is playing a game?

>Didn't the USSR notoriously abstain from that UN human rights agreement?
That doesn't mean they don't acknowledge human rights.

[Anonymous No.10898839]

>>10898742
Why are you still here? Did arxiv deny your paper again? Go away

[Anonymous No.10898996]

Reminds me of Chris Dowd, at Georgia Southwestern maybe. He met some chick out playing volleyball, and he asked her to go home with him. Even though she was a virgin, she said yes and they fucked that day, and that was his gf, I think, until they got arrested for drug dealing.

[Anonymous No.10899075]

Speaking of the Dowds... I think the Mike Dowd I knew through most of high school may have been different than the one I met when I first moved to GA. He "got sick" when I was 9th grade, and he looked so different afterwards. If they switched him, then that whole family was a disguise monster clan.

[Anonymous No.10899289]

>make retarded argument with zero support
>get mad when people want literally any evidence to back up your claim

[Anonymous No.10899296]

We cannot cite common funking sense, right ?

[Anonymous No.10899304]

>>10899296
>if I call my stupid opinions common sense then I don't have to defend it!

[Anonymous No.10899948]

AFAIK burger constitution still guarantees the right to import slaves.

[Anonymous No.10899950]

>>10899948
No, the 13th amendment makes it illegal to hold someone in slavery unless they have been convicted of a crime. Obviously they do it anyways, but the constitution says they aren't supposed to.

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10900396]

Square peg, round hole.
Concepts are just holes looking to get pegged.
Objects will try to fit into any concept if you're not looking.
So focus on the object must be a priority.

There is case where you'd allow a peg to permiscue.
When it's more likely to have been miss measured, than the acrobatics that may explain it.

If it talks like a fag and it's shit's all retarded. Something's wrong.


There are scores of lose quotations and references to other works, people, and anecdotes.
So I go into depth here, to give a slew of my knowledgeable. as if it can give for un made citations.

I don't believe that I have solely chanced upon this 'theory' by any clear distinction to originality.
But I feel that I am the first to try and relate the premise in a way that is attainable for the laymest of Man to get the gist.

Observations and philosophical queries. The story and measurements are alluding to this.
The nature of being, of man, and of existence is a all permeating question.
They say that the theory of Atoms were 'know' pre romean era. That the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar,
supposedly is calculated from the precession of the milkyway.
Sounds incredible. That Observers without optic lenses could measure these macro and micro poles.
Atomic theory I think was from pure deduction.

Obvious mechanisms that must exist to explain substances. How does water flow, and that the soft compresses into itself?
The precession of a galaxy is harder to attain, as how can a single generation witness the
deviation of galactic bodys and structures in a single lifetime, let alone without a stable platform with a telescopic sights to survey such a thing?

The same reason we honor the dead, both our fathers and mothers.
We honor thoes that pointed to better ways.

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10900402]

>>10900396
Given if you were technologically isolated. And wanted to check a thing. Something that'll take longer than you have to see it yourself.
Wouldn't you spend the 5 mins inscribe witness marks on a stone. And telling your grandson to pop back in on it when he gets the chance. Maybe his sons too.
Not like there's immediately pressing issues preventing a 'pilgrimage to honour the will of dead'.

This 'truith' of generational study and measurement came about when I was attempting to disseminate what multiple dimensions are in relation to us, as my attempt to be as concise and incomplicated lead to a mention of 'I'd become Prometheus if this got out'.
As it was a Analogy of learning of Telsaverse existence if you were bound to Edison U laws of Voltages and Amp measurement.
That it was a 'trick' of stealing energy from the higher verse by stealing half it's value. As that half isn't banned from existing.

That with this, I see our forbears dropped their knowlege in recursive ways.
That we might start to 'pick up what they're dropping', when the books are more filled with language and twig and brance explanation.
That their 'skizto' thoughts be cyphered into a relatable way. rationalized to the times it exists in.
That in a world pre coveted to standed education for all children, that their knowledge will pass on as tales.
Epics and words of morality with metaphorical conundrums.
Where language does not exist to correlate the phantasm tangible to their concept.
These are incredible resources for making current science theory more real.
I firmly see insight with these fables, the ramblings of many wise men. Of things without a word.

But of things that do certinly exist. Just not with a logical rout to define them with a word.

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10900405]

>>10900402
Untill recently. English. The most fuck all contrived notions of acceptable word inclusion and interpretation conformity.
If it needs definition, English can put, cannibalize, or phoneticist suggestion; new formulation of lettering to suggest clear definition when used to the concept it was birth from.
Theoretical lexicography awaiting Syntagma

For every good plan there's a neigh sayer decrying fallacy. For every bad plan, nobody questioned it, until it fails.

This knowledge was perverted when the Renaissance came.
A destructive mentality among the educated came to flourish.
That those that existed before then, were less knowledgeable then the wealth before us now.
The sentience isn't incorrect. But the common interpretation has crippled many.
Books are knowledge. But it's the ability to do with that, that's intelligence;
Not in knowing of things, the way they are known to be.
But Legacy alumni candidate Tommy Abercrombe doesn't ever hear that, much like his father before him.

This gives into a historical account of the Sophist, Hippias.
Hippias, a /know it all/ is credited with originating the idea of natural law.
So much was Hippas well versed, that Plato saw him as vain and arrogant.

For Plato to have fallen into the trap set by a Sophist built of pure Rhetoric, and Virtue.
That the great preacher of thoes mechanisms and knowlege paths.
Became fork tounged when seeing proper practition of his own ideals.
That it's correct adaptation, kicked all of Platos dogs and called them fuck off.
The birth of dismissing the person to reject the knowlege they present.

I will not accept dissmissal.
Dismissal is the Mind-Killer.
Dismissal the little-death that brings total ignorance.
I will face dismissal.
I will permit it to accost me and to attempt adhearance.
When it falls off my breast, I'll turn wrath to its origins.
Where dissmissal has failed, there will be knowlege if I remain.

[Anonymous No.10900406]

>>10890328
This. As usual, op is a dumb faggot.

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10900410]

>>10900405
Hippas being a Jack of of trade, master of none. Only espoused one thing that trancends technoligiocal advance.
According to Hippias, natural law was never to be superseded as it was universal.
He saw natural law as an entity that humans take part in without pre-meditation.
He regarded the elite in states as indistinguishable from one another
Thus they should perceive each other as so.

To take part without pre-meditation. This is somewhat a definitive statement. That there is no free will...
What could draw such a conclusion?
A tale of the Titans.
Prometheus, Trick at Mecone.

The Gods asked for negotiation of the division of sacrifice.
It's thought that Prometheus successfully tricked Zeus.
That Zeus had chose the lesser valuable division. This is in my eyes false.
This is often considered a "Man from clay" myth.
I see that this is a metaphorical instance alluding to Mans lack of foresight, despite forethought.
That Man was given a choice. To divide sacrifice. The Gods dividends of the realm they have control of.

Prometheus was disposed to preconception and limited scope. Prometheus only saw the literal interpretation of what was to take place.
That the Gods asking Man what would be fair between their realms was just mere materialism. Not a offer of ascension.

Prometheus saw that if he carved a beast into two piles, that he can give Man a desirable cut.
The flesh he tore from the carcass, savouring all offle.
He took the entails to cover the meat pile to appear as if foul. The bones were polished with fat, so they glint like gems in comparison.

[Anonymous No.10900414]

>>10899289
>>10899304
it's part of the classic schizo playbook. the other guy knows he's wrong and is only asking for evidence to avoid conceding the schizo's clear and obvious point.

[Anonymous No.10900418]

>>10900406
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10900419]

>>10900410
Zeus was not fooled in the least by this. In fact Zeus was angered. That a Titan act in place of Man, and as if in Mans best interest.
To lie in Mans stead, to act as if he was knowledgeable of outcome before full knowledge of the implications. of the task were even made evident of the things that were to be decided.

Zeus had to take the 'trick pile in order to punish Prometheus for his self-importance pretence to aspiration. That Man was without ability if the Titans weren't to act for them.

Zues too the bones. As they were the bargaining token to control of the structure. The fat polished upon the bones gave ability to make the structure slippery, to be without grasp.
With this division between the Gods and Man. Zues was able to make it so that Prometheus was punished most befittingly.
For his short sight. The structure's power was twisted so that Prometheus was to forever bound to a rock, where each day an eagle, the emblem of Zeus, was sent to feed on his liver, which would then grow back overnight to be eaten again the next day.

From skeleton frameworks, and all that entrails.
He was doomed to his own error. That his miss interpretation of the meetings matter to be decided. That his intervention to something not of his concern and that false thought, of what it was about entirely.
Became his fate. Interjection where nothing was known beyond a division of Ox between Man and Gods was known.
Going off half cocked, he made those he sought to see him as acting in their interest.
Lose a rewards beyond a Titan.
Purely from assumption of what a oxen being divided Man and Gods only meant of wordly possession.
That never could it had been if it were equally divided, that Man can rise to Zues position.

That's what I've conferred from that story.
Just because some things are generally one thing. Never discount they may be another thing at some other time.
Assumptions make arses of us all.