To me it is about gaslighting and arguing for the sake of arguing. We’ve long been in this realm of society now where nobody wants facts or truths, they just want you to be wrong. I have before, cited resources in arguments I’ve shamefully invested in, knowing that it will not matter in the end. Because I’m still going to be called a liar, I’m still going to be subjected to insults and be baited and gaslit.
And the same people still turn around and expect credible sources to be provided to them? Why ask when you don’t care?
It is one thing for someone to make outrageous, blatant and unclaimed arguments than it is another who talks of something and it has a resemblance of truth to it.
Sometimes I just wanna give an asshole some homework to do. It takes zero effort to drop a “Source?” and then never read the reply.
I think the breakdown in communication is due to a difference in how people’s brains have been trained to accept something as “true”. Some people embrace the scientific method, while others are dogmatic.
To elaborate, I imagine you (aspire to) readily alter your personal beliefs to fit the data you’ve observed. But that is a foreign concept to some people. In order to utilize the scientific method, you need to be appropriately trained in it, and you need the intellect to apply it. But if you’re lacking in either department, you still need to be able to function day-to-day, to dress yourself, do your job, pay bills, and just stay alive. No one has time to think critically about every single challenge they’re presented, so our default behaviour is to create heuristics which can be reused multiple times without needing to think.
The difference between science enjoyers and dogma stans is that the latter group slowly learned over their lifetime that heuristics helped them function in life more than relying on their ability to reason; and now not only do they depend on the exchange of heuristics between others in their group (their “ingroup” as-it-were) in order to function, but they assume everyone operates that way (it’s all they know). The scientific method is a just a vocab term they forgot in middle school, and the idea of re-evaluating your beliefs is frowned upon, because that means you must have bad heuristics!
So back to your original question, I believe the confusion happens because you and they have different implied meanings when you each ask for a source of information: You ask because you want new evidence that might change your conclusions about a subject. But they ask because they seek to discredit your source of heuristics. In their experience, if someone told them X, but then later that person turned out to be wrong, then that’s enough reason to doubt X. That’s their heuristic for doubt, so that’s their goal, to make a map of your ingroup and try to foster doubt within it.
That is the only reason in their mind that they would ever have to know your sources, the concept of empiricism is mostly foreign to them.
Just to give a different perspective than everyone else here but I have asked for sources before when people make claims like the water powered car, and then when they show a source that is a YouTube channels that breaks down to “trust me bro” I will usually reject their source.
I am not saying that’s what you are doing but if a person is criticizing your source, you should at least take a moment to consider “is my source valid”. It’s very common that people do just ask for a source and criticize regardless of validity as a way of wasting your time so don’t take it personally if a person does it
This is a good answer. Also people don’t tend to change their minds quickly on subjects they feel strongly about, but quality contrary evidence, especially without judgment or moralism, can sow seeds of doubt.
That’s why I at least attempt to provide good sources of information when possible but in the past 10 years I have found less and less people who are interested in conflicting information and just want to live in their own echo chamber. I have found Lemmy is at least better than most forums at least
They’re trying to waste your time. It’s a very common trolling tactic.
I simply don’t argue anymore. I choose my discussion partners wisely.
Bad faith, really, that’s all.
If you know they’ll be asses regardless, there’s no point in dealing with them further.
100%
Asking you to provide evidence in support of a position they’d never consider distracts you and keeps you busy doing worthless things.
I think it’s psychology. When people make politics or certain stances their entire personality, then by disproving those items it’s literally tearing apart their own identity. They are so unable to actually confront this that their brains will believe wild crazy ideas like conspiracy theories because even if it’s insane, they are able to keep their worldview.
Their minds have been so warped to protect their identity that they will believe whatever they need to to be able to keep these views - to the point where it must be true, because if it weren’t true the house of cards would collapse. So when you are arguing with them, you’re not actually going to ever be able to penetrate this, because they will build up whatever they need to in their mind to protect it.
An interesting way to think of this (to borrow from the video below), is that as if becomes it is. Feelings become facts.
Take gay marriage. To a conservative white christian, it means nothing to them logically. 2 separate people are getting married which in no way effects them. However, gay marriage makes them feel as if their straight marriage is less important and the meaning of it has been deluded. To protect this worldview, since it’s impossible for any fact or reasoning to back up their worldview, that as if becomes it is. To them, now gay marriage is diluting their straight marriage and it is less important. It must be. It has to be. If it’s not… then what is their worldview? Their entire personality, their identity is based around these core beliefs. If it’s not actually affecting them… then what is their identity? So their view isn’t based on fact at all, and thus no amount of facts will ever persuade them.
Philosophy Tube did a great video essay on this, and I think it’s completely worth a watch.
I have this happen a lot, so I know a thing or two about it from experience. That’s thanks to the Jesuit programming some people are subjected to, which I feel really bad for those who fall for it. I see this on Lemmy a lot, and my producer (Neigsendoig) had seen this happen elsewhere.
I find it interesting you call it Jesuit programming.
Some of the greatest scientists from India were evidently religious but they were also extremely scientific. I guess monotheistic dogma does run counter to multifaceted scientific evidence.
That said, there’s still a lot of Christian scientists who do not discard of evidence. It’s just that OP is talking to the wrong people.
Because as much as they want to claim they’re logical and rational, no logical or rational argument would ever be the thing to convince them. Identity politics prevents people from accepting anything from the “other side”, so they ask for sources so they can point to it as biased and unfair etc. There’s really no point in arguing with someone like that using facts. The things most likely to change their mind is their own personal experience or writing an entirely new narrative about the world.
As a ritual performance before they ignore you anyway
I have asked for sources when a post makes an extraordinary claim. It’s rare that I get anything meaningful as a response, but often I learn something or both of us do.
I wouldn’t say you “shamefully invested” time into finding sources for your arguments. I see it as educating yourself. Don’t do it for them; do it for you.
Where I was going with that is if you’re going to bother investing in an argument you know is a waste of time with these kinds of people, it is kind of shameful. That is basing what you already know to be factual. Double-checking isn’t wrong either but again, doesn’t apply to people who’re not open-minded.
Just ignore them or dont engage to begin with. Nothing but cold hard reality can teach them otherwise cuz their minds and hearts are not open
They want to confirm the information is from “the other team” before disregarding it
