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
-
stevencloser wrote: »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.
Exactly.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?
Just about every thread in this forum becomes a debate.1 -
Good point.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.
I actually think there's the opposite expectation in a debate forum. My expectation would be that I would have to work harder to prove my point, and that the people reading my thoughts will be more skeptical and more stringent about checking sources.
Also, as has been pointed out, facts don't change. Our understanding of the world does. Colloquially, science is true whether you believe in it or not.6 -
Sometimes it's useful to cite sources. Sometimes it's just redundant, or things anyone with a modicum of curiosity could obtain. Sometimes the sources are so academic that there's perhaps a handful of people who can even understand them, much less have the time and interest to bother checking them. Sometimes the sources are behind paywalls and therefore pretty much unhelpful to people without access to a good academic library ($35 / article is just ridiculous).
"Cite your sources" for every single thing anyone says here would be a hopeless miring of the conversation. It would also lead to a breakdown of communication between people with different levels of understanding.
And I say that even though I love citing studies that I've read (provided I didn't post from my cell phone, in which case all citations can go jump off a pier).3 -
As far as facts and the earth being flat goes... I don't know if it's semantics, a poor example, of if I'm just plain wrong, but isn't a fact something that can be proven beyond refute? Isn't that the definition of a fact? And as such, something being considered a fact is based on our ability to test/prove/disprove it, correct? So as our abilities to test ideas change with the increase of knowledge, advent of technology, etc etc, what is considered a fact can change, no?
Getting back to providing sources to justify a claim. Maybe it comes down to mindset. If you come into a debate looking for someone to prove your current beliefs on the topic wrong, then yes... sources will be an important part of all that. If you come into a debate looking to learn, then all you really need is a plausible argument. At least that's what I think. If someone makes a decent argument for their point, then I'll probably go research it on my own if I want to understand it with that degree of granularity.
And just to be clear... I'm not arguing against studies, sources, justifications. I'm just saying that the lack of one doesn't necessarily nullify the point being made. I'm arguing the "studies or GTFO" mentality that occasionally comes across from some people.1 -
As far as facts and the earth being flat goes... I don't know if it's semantics, a poor example, of if I'm just plain wrong, but isn't a fact something that can be proven beyond refute? Isn't that the definition of a fact? And as such, something being considered a fact is based on our ability to test/prove/disprove it, correct? So as our abilities to test ideas change with the increase of knowledge, advent of technology, etc etc, what is considered a fact can change, no?
Getting back to providing sources to justify a claim. Maybe it comes down to mindset. If you come into a debate looking for someone to prove your current beliefs on the topic wrong, then yes... sources will be an important part of all that. If you come into a debate looking to learn, then all you really need is a plausible argument. At least that's what I think. If someone makes a decent argument for their point, then I'll probably go research it on my own if I want to understand it with that degree of granularity.
And just to be clear... I'm not arguing against studies, sources, justifications. I'm just saying that the lack of one doesn't necessarily nullify the point being made. I'm arguing the "studies or GTFO" mentality that occasionally comes across from some people.
Maybe it is just an issue of semantics, but to me a fact is the truth. We may not know it, but that doesn't make it less factual. At any rate, you're right that that's not particularly relevant to the question at hand.
As to the second part I think it's a question of tone. If you come into a debate and say "it has always been my understanding that x" or "to me common sense would seem to imply y" then I think that's fine, as your wording indicates a desire to learn and an openness to the arguments and positions of others. If you come in and say "it's a fact that sugar causes cancer" then your tone implies you've already made up your mind, and in that case you're going to need some sources, and some pretty heavy hitting ones at that given the dramatic statement you've* made.
*"you" for the purposes of this thought exercise is only meant the proverbial sense. I know you've made no such claim.3 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »As far as facts and the earth being flat goes... I don't know if it's semantics, a poor example, of if I'm just plain wrong, but isn't a fact something that can be proven beyond refute? Isn't that the definition of a fact? And as such, something being considered a fact is based on our ability to test/prove/disprove it, correct? So as our abilities to test ideas change with the increase of knowledge, advent of technology, etc etc, what is considered a fact can change, no?
Getting back to providing sources to justify a claim. Maybe it comes down to mindset. If you come into a debate looking for someone to prove your current beliefs on the topic wrong, then yes... sources will be an important part of all that. If you come into a debate looking to learn, then all you really need is a plausible argument. At least that's what I think. If someone makes a decent argument for their point, then I'll probably go research it on my own if I want to understand it with that degree of granularity.
And just to be clear... I'm not arguing against studies, sources, justifications. I'm just saying that the lack of one doesn't necessarily nullify the point being made. I'm arguing the "studies or GTFO" mentality that occasionally comes across from some people.
As to the second part I think it's a question of tone. If you come into a debate and say "it has always been my understanding that x" or "to me common sense would seem to imply y" then I think that's fine, as your wording indicates a desire to learn and an openness to the arguments and positions of others. If you come in and say "it's a fact that sugar causes cancer" then your tone implies you've already made up your mind, and in that case you're going to need some sources, and some pretty heavy hitting ones at that given the dramatic statement you've* made.
*"you" for the purposes of this thought exercise is only meant the proverbial sense. I know you've made no such claim.
That's fair... I'll take that. A statement made as absolute truth is much more likely to be met with "prove it" (and understandably so) than the same point made in a more conversational way.1 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »As far as facts and the earth being flat goes... I don't know if it's semantics, a poor example, of if I'm just plain wrong, but isn't a fact something that can be proven beyond refute? Isn't that the definition of a fact? And as such, something being considered a fact is based on our ability to test/prove/disprove it, correct? So as our abilities to test ideas change with the increase of knowledge, advent of technology, etc etc, what is considered a fact can change, no?
Getting back to providing sources to justify a claim. Maybe it comes down to mindset. If you come into a debate looking for someone to prove your current beliefs on the topic wrong, then yes... sources will be an important part of all that. If you come into a debate looking to learn, then all you really need is a plausible argument. At least that's what I think. If someone makes a decent argument for their point, then I'll probably go research it on my own if I want to understand it with that degree of granularity.
And just to be clear... I'm not arguing against studies, sources, justifications. I'm just saying that the lack of one doesn't necessarily nullify the point being made. I'm arguing the "studies or GTFO" mentality that occasionally comes across from some people.
Maybe it is just an issue of semantics, but to me a fact is the truth. We may not know it, but that doesn't make it less factual. At any rate, you're right that that's not particularly relevant to the question at hand.
Agree with this. For example, if something happened in the past, we may have competing memories of it or narratives about it, and we of course have no way of 100% testing or determining what actually occurred, but there's still something factual that actually did occur, and the fact that people have different subjective impressions from it doesn't change that.
Similarly, at one time we did not have the capacity to prove or test whether the sun revolved around the earth or the earth around the sun. That the latter was true was still a fact.
I think it's helpful to realize that even if we don't know the facts, there are still facts, some things are true and some are not.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »As far as facts and the earth being flat goes... I don't know if it's semantics, a poor example, of if I'm just plain wrong, but isn't a fact something that can be proven beyond refute? Isn't that the definition of a fact? And as such, something being considered a fact is based on our ability to test/prove/disprove it, correct? So as our abilities to test ideas change with the increase of knowledge, advent of technology, etc etc, what is considered a fact can change, no?
Getting back to providing sources to justify a claim. Maybe it comes down to mindset. If you come into a debate looking for someone to prove your current beliefs on the topic wrong, then yes... sources will be an important part of all that. If you come into a debate looking to learn, then all you really need is a plausible argument. At least that's what I think. If someone makes a decent argument for their point, then I'll probably go research it on my own if I want to understand it with that degree of granularity.
And just to be clear... I'm not arguing against studies, sources, justifications. I'm just saying that the lack of one doesn't necessarily nullify the point being made. I'm arguing the "studies or GTFO" mentality that occasionally comes across from some people.
Maybe it is just an issue of semantics, but to me a fact is the truth. We may not know it, but that doesn't make it less factual. At any rate, you're right that that's not particularly relevant to the question at hand.
Agree with this. For example, if something happened in the past, we may have competing memories of it or narratives about it, and we of course have no way of 100% testing or determining what actually occurred, but there's still something factual that actually did occur, and the fact that people have different subjective impressions from it doesn't change that.
Similarly, at one time we did not have the capacity to prove or test whether the sun revolved around the earth or the earth around the sun. That the latter was true was still a fact.
I think it's helpful to realize that even if we don't know the facts, there are still facts, some things are true and some are not.
I don't disagree that absolute truth is absolute, regardless of what we can or can't prove, or whether or not we believe it to be true. But what we believe to be true, regardless of the actual truth of the matter, shapes our beliefs and our actions. And that is the part of all this that is relevant to MFP.
CICO is widely held as truth/fact regarding weight loss, and so for the vast majority of us, that is the basis on which we make decisions with weight loss/gain in mind. If 50 years from now CICO is shown to be only a correlating factor (not a cause), then the lack of absolute truth to CICO right now (in 2016) is irrelevant - it's still dictating what we do and don't do.
I guess my ultimate point is that while we know a whole heck of a lot about a heck of a lot of things... there is an awful lot that we don't know, too. And to lose sight of that can sometimes be an injustice to what might be a very good conversation.
Obviously, this is going off on a tangent from the original post, and I've probably bogged down this thread enough as it is.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »As far as facts and the earth being flat goes... I don't know if it's semantics, a poor example, of if I'm just plain wrong, but isn't a fact something that can be proven beyond refute? Isn't that the definition of a fact? And as such, something being considered a fact is based on our ability to test/prove/disprove it, correct? So as our abilities to test ideas change with the increase of knowledge, advent of technology, etc etc, what is considered a fact can change, no?
Getting back to providing sources to justify a claim. Maybe it comes down to mindset. If you come into a debate looking for someone to prove your current beliefs on the topic wrong, then yes... sources will be an important part of all that. If you come into a debate looking to learn, then all you really need is a plausible argument. At least that's what I think. If someone makes a decent argument for their point, then I'll probably go research it on my own if I want to understand it with that degree of granularity.
And just to be clear... I'm not arguing against studies, sources, justifications. I'm just saying that the lack of one doesn't necessarily nullify the point being made. I'm arguing the "studies or GTFO" mentality that occasionally comes across from some people.
Maybe it is just an issue of semantics, but to me a fact is the truth. We may not know it, but that doesn't make it less factual. At any rate, you're right that that's not particularly relevant to the question at hand.
Agree with this. For example, if something happened in the past, we may have competing memories of it or narratives about it, and we of course have no way of 100% testing or determining what actually occurred, but there's still something factual that actually did occur, and the fact that people have different subjective impressions from it doesn't change that.
Similarly, at one time we did not have the capacity to prove or test whether the sun revolved around the earth or the earth around the sun. That the latter was true was still a fact.
I think it's helpful to realize that even if we don't know the facts, there are still facts, some things are true and some are not.
I don't disagree that absolute truth is absolute, regardless of what we can or can't prove, or whether or not we believe it to be true. But what we believe to be true, regardless of the actual truth of the matter, shapes our beliefs and our actions.
No question, although I'm not really following how it's relevant.CICO is widely held as truth/fact regarding weight loss, and so for the vast majority of us, that is the basis on which we make decisions with weight loss/gain in mind. If 50 years from now CICO is shown to be only a correlating factor (not a cause), then the lack of absolute truth to CICO right now (in 2016) is irrelevant - it's still dictating what we do and don't do.
I think we know enough to know that CICO is how weight loss occurs (or weight gain or maintenance occurs) NOT just a correlation. On what basis is there any question about this? (Note, I'm not saying there aren't other things that affect CI and CO besides how many calories we eat or that the calories measured are perfect and track exactly what we absorb from the foods we eat.)I guess my ultimate point is that while we know a whole heck of a lot about a heck of a lot of things... there is an awful lot that we don't know, too. And to lose sight of that can sometimes be an injustice to what might be a very good conversation.
I'm not sure what you think is not being addressed in the conversation, although I mainly jumped in to talk about the meaning of "fact" which IMO is a separate issue (and one that interests me--I think there's a tendency today to take the difficulty of ascertaining and agreeing upon facts to mean that they don't exist or aren't important, and I find that troubling).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »As far as facts and the earth being flat goes... I don't know if it's semantics, a poor example, of if I'm just plain wrong, but isn't a fact something that can be proven beyond refute? Isn't that the definition of a fact? And as such, something being considered a fact is based on our ability to test/prove/disprove it, correct? So as our abilities to test ideas change with the increase of knowledge, advent of technology, etc etc, what is considered a fact can change, no?
Getting back to providing sources to justify a claim. Maybe it comes down to mindset. If you come into a debate looking for someone to prove your current beliefs on the topic wrong, then yes... sources will be an important part of all that. If you come into a debate looking to learn, then all you really need is a plausible argument. At least that's what I think. If someone makes a decent argument for their point, then I'll probably go research it on my own if I want to understand it with that degree of granularity.
And just to be clear... I'm not arguing against studies, sources, justifications. I'm just saying that the lack of one doesn't necessarily nullify the point being made. I'm arguing the "studies or GTFO" mentality that occasionally comes across from some people.
Maybe it is just an issue of semantics, but to me a fact is the truth. We may not know it, but that doesn't make it less factual. At any rate, you're right that that's not particularly relevant to the question at hand.
Agree with this. For example, if something happened in the past, we may have competing memories of it or narratives about it, and we of course have no way of 100% testing or determining what actually occurred, but there's still something factual that actually did occur, and the fact that people have different subjective impressions from it doesn't change that.
Similarly, at one time we did not have the capacity to prove or test whether the sun revolved around the earth or the earth around the sun. That the latter was true was still a fact.
I think it's helpful to realize that even if we don't know the facts, there are still facts, some things are true and some are not.
I don't disagree that absolute truth is absolute, regardless of what we can or can't prove, or whether or not we believe it to be true. But what we believe to be true, regardless of the actual truth of the matter, shapes our beliefs and our actions. And that is the part of all this that is relevant to MFP.
CICO is widely held as truth/fact regarding weight loss, and so for the vast majority of us, that is the basis on which we make decisions with weight loss/gain in mind. If 50 years from now CICO is shown to be only a correlating factor (not a cause), then the lack of absolute truth to CICO right now (in 2016) is irrelevant - it's still dictating what we do and don't do.
I guess my ultimate point is that while we know a whole heck of a lot about a heck of a lot of things... there is an awful lot that we don't know, too. And to lose sight of that can sometimes be an injustice to what might be a very good conversation.
Obviously, this is going off on a tangent from the original post, and I've probably bogged down this thread enough as it is.
The bigger issue with your example, is people misinterpret/misrepresent what CICO is. What it's referencing is actually EE, which is the basis for weight strategies. It gets complicated when you have medical conditions that affect EE, which then drives people to suggest CICO is debatable (i.e., those with IR/PCOS can decrease metabolic rate if a diet is high in carbs).
There still is plenty of topics that are debatable (i.e., SFA - good, bad, agnostic). The bigger issue, as I see it, is people make assumptions or conclusions (especially media) based on one-liners or abstracts. What really should be of interest is the parameters of study and the conditions tested. There was a good debate on SFA not to long ago in this forum. The abstract alluded to SFA are safe and do not affect health. But when you look at the details, it was a population study and average intake of SFA was 15% (only 5% above what is recommended). So while so are yelling victory for SFA, it cannot be extrapolated at higher rates... which is not what others want to hear.0 -
I used the earth being flat as an example to illustrate a point. People jumped in and said that the earth being flat was never a fact. Regardless of whether or not it was true, the fact that it was perceived to be true impacted people's beliefs. The same holds true in other arenas, especially health and fitness. We believe certain things to be true based on a variety of factors. We also believe certain things to be untrue. As we as individuals learn, what we hold as true changes, even if the absolute truth of the matter doesn't. Similarly, as science evolves, and the ability to observe and test ideas changes, what the field holds as truth may change. Again, the absolute truth of a matter doesn't change, but our ability to perceive that truth can. As such, a person open to learning should, I think, should be willing to consider positions even if there is a lack of supporting data for that position.lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »As far as facts and the earth being flat goes... I don't know if it's semantics, a poor example, of if I'm just plain wrong, but isn't a fact something that can be proven beyond refute? Isn't that the definition of a fact? And as such, something being considered a fact is based on our ability to test/prove/disprove it, correct? So as our abilities to test ideas change with the increase of knowledge, advent of technology, etc etc, what is considered a fact can change, no?
Getting back to providing sources to justify a claim. Maybe it comes down to mindset. If you come into a debate looking for someone to prove your current beliefs on the topic wrong, then yes... sources will be an important part of all that. If you come into a debate looking to learn, then all you really need is a plausible argument. At least that's what I think. If someone makes a decent argument for their point, then I'll probably go research it on my own if I want to understand it with that degree of granularity.
And just to be clear... I'm not arguing against studies, sources, justifications. I'm just saying that the lack of one doesn't necessarily nullify the point being made. I'm arguing the "studies or GTFO" mentality that occasionally comes across from some people.
Maybe it is just an issue of semantics, but to me a fact is the truth. We may not know it, but that doesn't make it less factual. At any rate, you're right that that's not particularly relevant to the question at hand.
Agree with this. For example, if something happened in the past, we may have competing memories of it or narratives about it, and we of course have no way of 100% testing or determining what actually occurred, but there's still something factual that actually did occur, and the fact that people have different subjective impressions from it doesn't change that.
Similarly, at one time we did not have the capacity to prove or test whether the sun revolved around the earth or the earth around the sun. That the latter was true was still a fact.
I think it's helpful to realize that even if we don't know the facts, there are still facts, some things are true and some are not.
I don't disagree that absolute truth is absolute, regardless of what we can or can't prove, or whether or not we believe it to be true. But what we believe to be true, regardless of the actual truth of the matter, shapes our beliefs and our actions.
No question, although I'm not really following how it's relevant.
To be fair, some positions only warrant 5 second of consideration, some warrant 15 pages of discussion.
Currently there isn't. That doesn't mean that can't change at some point in the future. And again, I was using it as an example to make a point... not as a jumping off point to argue CICO.CICO is widely held as truth/fact regarding weight loss, and so for the vast majority of us, that is the basis on which we make decisions with weight loss/gain in mind. If 50 years from now CICO is shown to be only a correlating factor (not a cause), then the lack of absolute truth to CICO right now (in 2016) is irrelevant - it's still dictating what we do and don't do.
I think we know enough to know that CICO is how weight loss occurs (or weight gain or maintenance occurs) NOT just a correlation. On what basis is there any question about this? (Note, I'm not saying there aren't other things that affect CI and CO besides how many calories we eat or that the calories measured are perfect and track exactly what we absorb from the foods we eat.)
My original point when getting into this thread was that the lack of study or supporting evidence does not inherently make a point false. This truth conversation is an unexpected tangent from that.I guess my ultimate point is that while we know a whole heck of a lot about a heck of a lot of things... there is an awful lot that we don't know, too. And to lose sight of that can sometimes be an injustice to what might be a very good conversation.
I'm not sure what you think is not being addressed in the conversation, although I mainly jumped in to talk about the meaning of "fact" which IMO is a separate issue (and one that interests me--I think there's a tendency today to take the difficulty of ascertaining and agreeing upon facts to mean that they don't exist or aren't important, and I find that troubling).
I also think there's a bit of the last word syndrome setting in now, at least for me... so I'll let this all go unless someone wants to make a new point or take it in a different direction.1 -
I'm just here to feel superior to my peers.
6 -
This is a great premise and one where you see the true nature of people when their beliefs are challenged/threatened. It would put a quick end to many of the "but CICO doesn't work for me" threads.
For an issue like "Is the Earth flat?" - the discussion is simple as the parameters are set. For something personal like "Why am I not losing weight?" the discussion is impossible as the parameters are established by the reporter with no means of establishing accuracy or credibility and no ability to verify.
This also highlights the abysmal state of education, particularly science education.
One of the best pieces of advice I have ever received was "Question everything that you have not already proven to be true."1 -
If by review, you mean 'uses google to find the first result with a title that confirms their beliefs', then yes
5 -
If by review, you mean 'uses google to find the first result with a title that confirms their beliefs', then yes
You're my neighbor, aren't you?
Even though this is the "Debate" forum, honestly I think we take all this w a a a a a y too seriously.
ry and anvil, you'll remember HWSNBN and the insane thousands of pages we spent arguing with him over stuff. There were a couple people who made it their life mission to argue with him and that was just as nutty IMO. I mean he was so "out there" that no one (and by no one, I mean I didn't) really believed him after the 1,000th thread and yet it took up day after day, thread after thread.
No. I'm not over it.
FWP 0 -
cmriverside wrote: »
If by review, you mean 'uses google to find the first result with a title that confirms their beliefs', then yes
You're my neighbor, aren't you?
Even though this is the "Debate" forum, honestly I think we take all this w a a a a a y too seriously.
ry and anvil, you'll remember HWSNBN and the insane thousands of pages we spent arguing with him over stuff. There were a couple people who made it their life mission to argue with him and that was just as nutty IMO. I mean he was so "out there" that no one (and by no one, I mean I didn't) really believed him after the 1,000th thread and yet it took up day after day, thread after thread.
No. I'm not over it. FWP
Oh Lawd....STAHP! You might conjure him up again by mentioning it!1 -
cmriverside wrote: »
If by review, you mean 'uses google to find the first result with a title that confirms their beliefs', then yes
You're my neighbor, aren't you?
Even though this is the "Debate" forum, honestly I think we take all this w a a a a a y too seriously.
ry and anvil, you'll remember HWSNBN and the insane thousands of pages we spent arguing with him over stuff. There were a couple people who made it their life mission to argue with him and that was just as nutty IMO. I mean he was so "out there" that no one (and by no one, I mean I didn't) really believed him after the 1,000th thread and yet it took up day after day, thread after thread.
No. I'm not over it. FWP
Oh Lawd....STAHP! You might conjure him up again by mentioning it!
I'm a little worried since helloitsDan is back. Typing IPOARM may have been the nail in that coffin. I'm sure HWSNBN has his yahoosearch set to alert him.
1 -
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions