Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Provide Your Sources
Options
Replies
-
FWIW, I read to learn, not so I can prove a point on some message board. I don't bookmark studies, articles, etc, so I rarely have sources at the ready if my thoughts don't fit all nice and tidy with what others think.
That's really OK as long as you're not presenting your opinion as scientific fact. Most of the discussions on the message boards are informal - this is the debate forum so here you would be expected to back up what you say.
Isn't there also an expectation that, in a debate forum, people would be open minded to differing points? Don't forget, facts change over time (i.e. the world is no longer flat)... and nowhere is that more evident than in topics of health.
And just to be clear, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I think the overwhelming majority of the MFP regulars enjoy the learning and the helping as much as anything else.
In a debate one has to back up what you present as fact with a citation just like you do when you are writing an academic paper. Proper debates aren't the place to make up "facts"5 -
FWIW, I read to learn, not so I can prove a point on some message board. I don't bookmark studies, articles, etc, so I rarely have sources at the ready if my thoughts don't fit all nice and tidy with what others think.
That's really OK as long as you're not presenting your opinion as scientific fact. Most of the discussions on the message boards are informal - this is the debate forum so here you would be expected to back up what you say.
Isn't there also an expectation that, in a debate forum, people would be open minded to differing points? Don't forget, facts change over time (i.e. the world is no longer flat)... and nowhere is that more evident than in topics of health.
And just to be clear, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I think the overwhelming majority of the MFP regulars enjoy the learning and the helping as much as anything else.
Oh yes, I absolutely agree! For me, that's the whole purpose of a debate!2 -
singingflutelady wrote: »FWIW, I read to learn, not so I can prove a point on some message board. I don't bookmark studies, articles, etc, so I rarely have sources at the ready if my thoughts don't fit all nice and tidy with what others think.
That's really OK as long as you're not presenting your opinion as scientific fact. Most of the discussions on the message boards are informal - this is the debate forum so here you would be expected to back up what you say.
Isn't there also an expectation that, in a debate forum, people would be open minded to differing points? Don't forget, facts change over time (i.e. the world is no longer flat)... and nowhere is that more evident than in topics of health.
And just to be clear, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I think the overwhelming majority of the MFP regulars enjoy the learning and the helping as much as anything else.
In a debate one has to back up what you present as fact with a citation just like you do when you are writing an academic paper. Proper debates aren't the place to make up "facts"
Maybe it's the way I read/interpret things, but isn't there a lot of gray area between making up facts and proving something with scientific data? Just because I don't have a link to post doesn't mean my point is necessarily wrong. Especially in a forum like MFP, where a point can be valid or invalid simply based on context, which is often left out (though, less so in this forum than in the other general forums).
Again, devil's advocate.1 -
singingflutelady wrote: »FWIW, I read to learn, not so I can prove a point on some message board. I don't bookmark studies, articles, etc, so I rarely have sources at the ready if my thoughts don't fit all nice and tidy with what others think.
That's really OK as long as you're not presenting your opinion as scientific fact. Most of the discussions on the message boards are informal - this is the debate forum so here you would be expected to back up what you say.
Isn't there also an expectation that, in a debate forum, people would be open minded to differing points? Don't forget, facts change over time (i.e. the world is no longer flat)... and nowhere is that more evident than in topics of health.
And just to be clear, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I think the overwhelming majority of the MFP regulars enjoy the learning and the helping as much as anything else.
In a debate one has to back up what you present as fact with a citation just like you do when you are writing an academic paper. Proper debates aren't the place to make up "facts"
Maybe it's the way I read/interpret things, but isn't there a lot of gray area between making up facts and proving something with scientific data? Just because I don't have a link to post doesn't mean my point is necessarily wrong. Especially in a forum like MFP, where a point can be valid or invalid simply based on context, which is often left out (though, less so in this forum than in the other general forums).
Again, devil's advocate.
True I do agree about the gray area. I was going to edit that out but didn't get a chance. No it doesn't necessarily make your point wrong but it does help if you can back up your claim. I have seen lots of crazy things stated as facts that are never backed up.1 -
FWIW, I read to learn, not so I can prove a point on some message board. I don't bookmark studies, articles, etc, so I rarely have sources at the ready if my thoughts don't fit all nice and tidy with what others think.
That's really OK as long as you're not presenting your opinion as scientific fact. Most of the discussions on the message boards are informal - this is the debate forum so here you would be expected to back up what you say.
Isn't there also an expectation that, in a debate forum, people would be open minded to differing points? Don't forget, facts change over time (i.e. the world is no longer flat)... and nowhere is that more evident than in topics of health.
And just to be clear, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I think the overwhelming majority of the MFP regulars enjoy the learning and the helping as much as anything else.
Would you prefer to wade through a forum of people repeating the same irrational nonsense opinion in perpetuity or at would you at least like to see them attempt to formulate and present a position based on a rational observation that is demonstrably tied to some form of logic?0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »FWIW, I read to learn, not so I can prove a point on some message board. I don't bookmark studies, articles, etc, so I rarely have sources at the ready if my thoughts don't fit all nice and tidy with what others think.
That's really OK as long as you're not presenting your opinion as scientific fact. Most of the discussions on the message boards are informal - this is the debate forum so here you would be expected to back up what you say.
Isn't there also an expectation that, in a debate forum, people would be open minded to differing points? Don't forget, facts change over time (i.e. the world is no longer flat)... and nowhere is that more evident than in topics of health.
And just to be clear, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I think the overwhelming majority of the MFP regulars enjoy the learning and the helping as much as anything else.
In a debate one has to back up what you present as fact with a citation just like you do when you are writing an academic paper. Proper debates aren't the place to make up "facts"
Maybe it's the way I read/interpret things, but isn't there a lot of gray area between making up facts and proving something with scientific data? Just because I don't have a link to post doesn't mean my point is necessarily wrong. Especially in a forum like MFP, where a point can be valid or invalid simply based on context, which is often left out (though, less so in this forum than in the other general forums).
Again, devil's advocate.
Well, unless it's stated clearly in the beginning that the debate is about opinions, not scientific facts (this is a legitimate type of debate), sources need to be cited. Questioning the sources is of course to be expected and that's where I think persuading people to change their minds would be most effective.
eta: Just my opinion of course
0 -
FWIW, I read to learn, not so I can prove a point on some message board. I don't bookmark studies, articles, etc, so I rarely have sources at the ready if my thoughts don't fit all nice and tidy with what others think.
That's really OK as long as you're not presenting your opinion as scientific fact. Most of the discussions on the message boards are informal - this is the debate forum so here you would be expected to back up what you say.
Isn't there also an expectation that, in a debate forum, people would be open minded to differing points? Don't forget, facts change over time (i.e. the world is no longer flat)... and nowhere is that more evident than in topics of health.
And just to be clear, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I think the overwhelming majority of the MFP regulars enjoy the learning and the helping as much as anything else.
Isn't there a difference between being open to new ideas and backing up what you say? You're shifting the goal posts here in your attempt to play devil's advocate (the devil needs no advocate. There are plenty doing that work in every debate).
I don't know you. I don't know if you're well-studied or just starting out. I don't know if you read a study two years ago or twenty. I don't know if it was presented to you accurately or if your memory of it is correct or hazy. Taking your word for it halts the discussion because I can't look into it further to see what information I'm missing.
If you don't want to provide sources, that's fine. It's never going to become a hard rule of the site. But it does turn a good, learnable discussion into nothing more than he said/she said.5 -
I have learned a lot about vetting sources and peer reviewed studies from reading posts on this site.5
-
MelanieCN77 wrote: »There should be a posting rule, where if you say something like "research says" or "studies show" or "I read somewhere that" that you have to provide a link or at least a title and author reference to your source.
So if someone breaks this proposed rule what would you suggest the consequences be? Should the person ultimately be banned from posting? Can the moderators handle policing posts that much more than they already do?
What if someone posts "I read somewhere that prunes are good to eat if you are constipated". Do you come down on that person for not producing a prune study?2 -
MelanieCN77 wrote: »There should be a posting rule, where if you say something like "research says" or "studies show" or "I read somewhere that" that you have to provide a link or at least a title and author reference to your source.
OP, a question just occurred to me - are you talking about discussions in all forums or the debate forum specifically?0 -
FWIW, I read to learn, not so I can prove a point on some message board. I don't bookmark studies, articles, etc, so I rarely have sources at the ready if my thoughts don't fit all nice and tidy with what others think.
That's really OK as long as you're not presenting your opinion as scientific fact. Most of the discussions on the message boards are informal - this is the debate forum so here you would be expected to back up what you say.
Isn't there also an expectation that, in a debate forum, people would be open minded to differing points? Don't forget, facts change over time (i.e. the world is no longer flat)... and nowhere is that more evident than in topics of health.
And just to be clear, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I think the overwhelming majority of the MFP regulars enjoy the learning and the helping as much as anything else.
Would you prefer to wade through a forum of people repeating the same irrational nonsense opinion in perpetuity or at would you at least like to see them attempt to formulate and present a position based on a rational observation that is demonstrably tied to some form of logic?
I would like to see people demonstrate the ability and the willingness to think logically about both anecdotal "evidence" and scientific results. There is a big different between something that hasn't been proven and something that has been disproved.
A lot of the topics that are worthy of debate are worthy because they don't have nice, neat, concise, answers that apply under all circumstances. So the "post a study or GTFO" attitude (again, devil's advocate... most people don't have this attitude) isn't always beneficial.1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »FWIW, I read to learn, not so I can prove a point on some message board. I don't bookmark studies, articles, etc, so I rarely have sources at the ready if my thoughts don't fit all nice and tidy with what others think.
That's really OK as long as you're not presenting your opinion as scientific fact. Most of the discussions on the message boards are informal - this is the debate forum so here you would be expected to back up what you say.
Isn't there also an expectation that, in a debate forum, people would be open minded to differing points? Don't forget, facts change over time (i.e. the world is no longer flat)... and nowhere is that more evident than in topics of health.
And just to be clear, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I think the overwhelming majority of the MFP regulars enjoy the learning and the helping as much as anything else.
Isn't there a difference between being open to new ideas and backing up what you say? You're shifting the goal posts here in your attempt to play devil's advocate (the devil needs no advocate. There are plenty doing that work in every debate).
I don't know you. I don't know if you're well-studied or just starting out. I don't know if you read a study two years ago or twenty. I don't know if it was presented to you accurately or if your memory of it is correct or hazy. Taking your word for it halts the discussion because I can't look into it further to see what information I'm missing.
If you don't want to provide sources, that's fine. It's never going to become a hard rule of the site. But it does turn a good, learnable discussion into nothing more than he said/she said.
Hmmm....
I think you get at an interesting piece of all this when you question my background/knowledge.
If Sidesteel were to come into one of these debates and post something that didn't line up with what I thought I knew, I'd be much more apt to take it at face value, and I'd certainly give it much more thought/consideration than if someone with 15 posts and a join date of August 2016 made that same claim. The perceived trustworthiness of the source matters. I can't decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's certainly a thing.3 -
diannethegeek wrote: »FWIW, I read to learn, not so I can prove a point on some message board. I don't bookmark studies, articles, etc, so I rarely have sources at the ready if my thoughts don't fit all nice and tidy with what others think.
That's really OK as long as you're not presenting your opinion as scientific fact. Most of the discussions on the message boards are informal - this is the debate forum so here you would be expected to back up what you say.
Isn't there also an expectation that, in a debate forum, people would be open minded to differing points? Don't forget, facts change over time (i.e. the world is no longer flat)... and nowhere is that more evident than in topics of health.
And just to be clear, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I think the overwhelming majority of the MFP regulars enjoy the learning and the helping as much as anything else.
Isn't there a difference between being open to new ideas and backing up what you say? You're shifting the goal posts here in your attempt to play devil's advocate (the devil needs no advocate. There are plenty doing that work in every debate).
I don't know you. I don't know if you're well-studied or just starting out. I don't know if you read a study two years ago or twenty. I don't know if it was presented to you accurately or if your memory of it is correct or hazy. Taking your word for it halts the discussion because I can't look into it further to see what information I'm missing.
If you don't want to provide sources, that's fine. It's never going to become a hard rule of the site. But it does turn a good, learnable discussion into nothing more than he said/she said.
Hmmm....
I think you get at an interesting piece of all this when you question my background/knowledge.
If Sidesteel were to come into one of these debates and post something that didn't line up with what I thought I knew, I'd be much more apt to take it at face value, and I'd certainly give it much more thought/consideration than if someone with 15 posts and a join date of August 2016 made that same claim. The perceived trustworthiness of the source matters. I can't decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's certainly a thing.
Oh absolutely! Most people are far more likely to accept without question a citation from a textbook and less likely to accept one from a popular diet book.0 -
Facts don't change.
The world was never flat.
We just didn't understand that until we had proof otherwise.
The older I get the less I know, honestly.
My least favorite "friend" is this super-annoying neighbor who you can't even have a casual, driveway discussion with without her pulling out her phone and googling nearly every opinion everyone has. I avoid her like the plague. There is a lot to be said for polite conversation and not having to try to be "right" at every turn.
*ets. You know what else doesn't change? My inability to post without editing for typos.7 -
I'm not campaigning for a hard rule, really. I wish for more rigor when throwing around "facts." Something that would make someone think about what they were saying when they type one of the magic phrases. Question what they believe and why they believe it. I got kicked off yesterday by someone posting that they "read a book yesterday" that said pear shaped people shouldn't do lower body exercises. I asked politely twice for the book. I'd rather talk about someone's source being questionable than call them silly.1
-
MelanieCN77 wrote: »There should be a posting rule, where if you say something like "research says" or "studies show" or "I read somewhere that" that you have to provide a link or at least a title and author reference to your source.
OP, a question just occurred to me - are you talking about discussions in all forums or the debate forum specifically?
We can't all have personal trainers and dietitians, that's why we are here, of course, for peer support. I think people should be encouraged to be responsible and thoughtful when they are doling out advice on diet and exercise in particular, regardless of the venue.1 -
MelanieCN77 wrote: »MelanieCN77 wrote: »There should be a posting rule, where if you say something like "research says" or "studies show" or "I read somewhere that" that you have to provide a link or at least a title and author reference to your source.
OP, a question just occurred to me - are you talking about discussions in all forums or the debate forum specifically?
We can't all have personal trainers and dietitians, that's why we are here, of course, for peer support. I think people should be encouraged to be responsible and thoughtful when they are doling out advice on diet and exercise in particular, regardless of the venue.
The problem (which is evident by reading through the forums) is that so many people are "educated" by the woo and derp they read in magazines and see on Dr. Oz, or on some crackpot junk scientist's website. They firmly believe it is "fact" and will argue the point to the death despite being shown scientific evidence to the contrary. They think they're being responsible and thoughtful, but all they're doing is vomiting garbage. Ask them to source their claims and they'll link to a newspaper article, a blog, a YouTube video or some other such dubious, poorly vetted "source".
There's no way to stop them, but their credibility (or complete lack thereof) becomes evident after a few posts.2 -
MelanieCN77 wrote: »MelanieCN77 wrote: »There should be a posting rule, where if you say something like "research says" or "studies show" or "I read somewhere that" that you have to provide a link or at least a title and author reference to your source.
OP, a question just occurred to me - are you talking about discussions in all forums or the debate forum specifically?
We can't all have personal trainers and dietitians, that's why we are here, of course, for peer support. I think people should be encouraged to be responsible and thoughtful when they are doling out advice on diet and exercise in particular, regardless of the venue.
The problem (which is evident by reading through the forums) is that so many people are "educated" by the woo and derp they read in magazines and see on Dr. Oz, or on some crackpot junk scientist's website. They firmly believe it is "fact" and will argue the point to the death despite being shown scientific evidence to the contrary. They think they're being responsible and thoughtful, but all they're doing is vomiting garbage. Ask them to source their claims and they'll link to a newspaper article, a blog, a YouTube video or some other such dubious, poorly vetted "source".
There's no way to stop them, but their credibility (or complete lack thereof) becomes evident after a few posts.
It's great when someone starts to realize how much they have been duped by the misinterpretations presented by media. Unfortunately, we also have those who insist on continuing to use these sources despite recognizing that they are insufficient at best and willfully misleading to increase readership at worse.1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »FWIW, I read to learn, not so I can prove a point on some message board. I don't bookmark studies, articles, etc, so I rarely have sources at the ready if my thoughts don't fit all nice and tidy with what others think.
That's really OK as long as you're not presenting your opinion as scientific fact. Most of the discussions on the message boards are informal - this is the debate forum so here you would be expected to back up what you say.
Isn't there also an expectation that, in a debate forum, people would be open minded to differing points? Don't forget, facts change over time (i.e. the world is no longer flat)... and nowhere is that more evident than in topics of health.
And just to be clear, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I think the overwhelming majority of the MFP regulars enjoy the learning and the helping as much as anything else.
Isn't there a difference between being open to new ideas and backing up what you say? You're shifting the goal posts here in your attempt to play devil's advocate (the devil needs no advocate. There are plenty doing that work in every debate).
I don't know you. I don't know if you're well-studied or just starting out. I don't know if you read a study two years ago or twenty. I don't know if it was presented to you accurately or if your memory of it is correct or hazy. Taking your word for it halts the discussion because I can't look into it further to see what information I'm missing.
If you don't want to provide sources, that's fine. It's never going to become a hard rule of the site. But it does turn a good, learnable discussion into nothing more than he said/she said.
Hmmm....
I think you get at an interesting piece of all this when you question my background/knowledge.
If Sidesteel were to come into one of these debates and post something that didn't line up with what I thought I knew, I'd be much more apt to take it at face value, and I'd certainly give it much more thought/consideration than if someone with 15 posts and a join date of August 2016 made that same claim. The perceived trustworthiness of the source matters. I can't decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's certainly a thing.
There are three classical means of persuasion in a debate:pathos, ethos and logos. Posting high-quality studies and other objective appeals to rationality is logos (the Greek root for logic). Ethos is an appeal to character--there are many posters here that have built of a reputation for scientific excellence, and they might post "I can't remember the study right now, but..." and their statement is accepted more readily than the statement of some unknown, or someone who has posted a lot of derp in the past. Also, even if someone is a new poster, the content of their message makes a big difference--you know when you are dealing with an expert by the way they talk. As you note, this is not good or bad, it just IS. Finally, I saw an awesome example of pathos ("suffering") over the weekend-- @Aaron_K123 posted some extremely thoughtful comments (ethos) on the "GAH! My Jerk Husband Bought Chocolate!" thread, and a poster named Puppybear raked him over the freaking coals for what a mean meanie bad guy he was. Aaron! It was a bunch of touchy-feely nonsense, but it probably made Aaron feel horrible, and it likely framed him as a "bad" person in the eyes of anyone who wasn't familiar with his general kindness and the consistent excellence of the advice he gives. It was extremely well done pathos, but empty of ethos or logos. Basically, you want to have all three in your toolbox, both to use, and to deconstruct your debate opponent--logos is the most difficult to deconstruct, but sometimes that makes little difference in a society that has been taught to feel all the feelz and not to think critically.9 -
cmriverside wrote: »Facts don't change.
The world was never flat.
We just didn't understand that until we had proof otherwise.
The older I get the less I know, honestly.
My least favorite "friend" is this super-annoying neighbor who you can't even have a casual, driveway discussion with without her pulling out her phone and googling nearly every opinion everyone has. I avoid her like the plague. There is a lot to be said for polite conversation and not having to try to be "right" at every turn.
*ets. You know what else doesn't change? My inability to post without editing for typos.
Not only is the world not flat, people didn't believe it was flat nearly as long as people believe they did.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions