I was calling out someone criticizing me for not providing citations whilst they also failed to provide citations. So that seems fair game to me.
Truth be told, though, I feel like your statement is insinuating that I somehow don't value science. Or, that I've never heard of the scientific method?
My main point of frustration is how people are expecting a level of rigor that isn't congruent with the medium. This is a forum, not an academic journal or a policy-making body. I don't know if "reverse gish gallop" has been coined yet, but I sense that when one finds someone they disagree with they can adopt the mindset that everything that person has said must be backed up with a citation. Virtually no one is equipped to perform a dissertation defense on a forum post, so demanding an ever increasing list of evidence is an effective means of discrediting the content without actually engaging with it.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
People holding opinions without any evidence is a modern plague, you shouldn't be defending it.
Just do some work to have a basis for your opinions. It is intellectually lazy not to do so, and you've got the Internet, Google and Wikipedia to help you get started, you don't even need to leave your couch and physically go down to a Library.
You can't admit other people have a valid objection so you just twist words and misrepresent others to avoid admitting your initial post was content-free and of no value. Please just stop.
>"You can't admit other people have a valid objection"
How can it be a valid objection if you've provided zero evidence to back it up? You are the one who decries a lack of supporting evidence, yet you've provided none in any of your replies so far. Particularly: "holding opinions without any evidence is a modern plague" because it looks a lot like a personal opinion of yours with zero presented evidence to back it up.
I don't see where it backs up your claim that "People holding opinions without any evidence is a modern plague". Don't pearlclutch about presenting opinions without evidence without providing the evidence you expect from others.
I don't like the duplicity of demanding citations and grandstanding about how bad it is not to provide any, while simultaneously making claims with "zero evidence". If they'll call me out on it, I'll hold them to their own standard right back. This is despite the fact that I don't believe everything needs a citation.
In any event, this is getting more and more contentious and we should probably all just leave things be.
Truth be told, though, I feel like your statement is insinuating that I somehow don't value science. Or, that I've never heard of the scientific method?
My main point of frustration is how people are expecting a level of rigor that isn't congruent with the medium. This is a forum, not an academic journal or a policy-making body. I don't know if "reverse gish gallop" has been coined yet, but I sense that when one finds someone they disagree with they can adopt the mindset that everything that person has said must be backed up with a citation. Virtually no one is equipped to perform a dissertation defense on a forum post, so demanding an ever increasing list of evidence is an effective means of discrediting the content without actually engaging with it.