What's wrong with criticizing sources?

[Charles Kozierok]

Am I the only one who thinks that, when it comes to politics and discourse, the expression "don't shoot the messenger" is overused these days?

Certainly the messenger doesn't matter when what is being presented is factual. But when it's opinion? How does the messenger not matter?

If I showed you an article about gun rights that consisted solely of opinions and claims without backing sources, would you view that article differently if you knew it was written by Sarah Brady versus Wayne LaPierre?

The impeachment of sources is an entirely valid response to opinion-based argumentation.

 

[spittledip]

It is ad hominem of sorts, so it is not really legitimate. You have to take every argument as it is presented, you cannot just dismiss every argument b/c it is from a particular source. If there is but one 1 good argument or bit of data from that source, you commit a logical fallacy by dismissing the source entirely.

The problem is that you are mixing 2 ideas- calling a source a bad source is one idea, and a legitimate one. The other idea is dismissing someone's argument or ideas b/c they come from a particular source. One can get a good idea from a bad source.

 

[ivwshane]

If you dismiss a source then I'd say it's on you to provide a better counter source or give a factual analysis of why the source is no good.

For example, if someone uses breitbart as their source and someone calls them on it they should be able to point to their defects and past biases/errors/lying, etc.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Actually that is fine and dandy but on the other hand....what you get is people being the first to post on a topic and they muddie the water by making it so that in order to even address the topic you need to address their concerns....

Take a look at look at randomrogue`s post -- http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2301615

To even adress the issue it will take a long time to rebutt what he has said when in fact....what he has said is his opinion...using sources to back up his opinion....and then asking for discussion.....

Yet it is my contention that he should have started 3 seperate threads....on each....

He states -- I'd really like to see supporters defend these actions and a point/counter-point debate. -- I pointed out that for some of us no defense was necessary......


all his sources are wikipedia.....yet if you read wikipedia`s disclaimer you will understand why quite a few colleges do not allow the use of wikipedia.....with that said...I guess the simple solution would be to ignore his threads.

God Bless!!

 

[randomrogue]

Are we discounting wikipedia as a source?

If you look at wikipedia you need to have a grain of salt and that should be very clear. For example if you look at the wikipedia for homosexuality in the catholic church it says:

The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (January 2013)

So you're free to present your view in my thread. I went on to post another link that tried to present your point of view even.

At some point a source is laughable at best. If you came here and cited Rush Limbaugh as a legitimate political source I wouldn't entertain it.

 

[ivwshane]

This thread is a perfect example:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2302135

The OP cites an opinion piece as fact for declaring obamacare a disaster. The article not only doesnt cite any sources but the author has a history of which includes working for a think tank, working directly with the tobacco industry to write a response to the healthcare debate in the 90's and she's been in the medical business where she would have profited from a non universal healthcare system.

Since no facts were presented and the article was opinion I think the only reasonable option would be to attack the source or give your own opinion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This thread is a perfect example:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2302135

The OP cites an opinion piece as fact for declaring obamacare a disaster. The article not only doesnt cite any sources but the author has a history of which includes working for a think tank, working directly with the tobacco industry to write a response to the healthcare debate in the 90's and she's been in the medical business where she would have profited from a non universal healthcare system.

Since no facts were presented and the article was opinion I think the only reasonable option would be to attack the source or give your own opinion.

As I asked were the statements false? That wasn't a "gotcha" question, I don't know myself. It seems that the correctness of the statements are the real test. If it's a lie then you have a legitimate basis to attack the source, but if one doesn't check then consider the possibility of a personal bias. Attacking without verifying isn't the best logical response. Please don't take this as an attack, but is it possible that you have a bias that masks you resist criticism of Obamacare? If so why is that? I mention it only as a point of self examination. I myself have a bias against it, so I'm not throwing stones, but I have reasons I can give. Again it's not an attack, and not even about you personally, but health is an emotional subject and all things that touch the heart may influence ones viewpoint and I've done that at times.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

ivwshane -- That thread is indeed the perfect example and was the most proximate motivation for posting this thread. But it's an issue that comes up a lot. So much so that I asked for one of the rules of this place to specifically address the matter. Thus, I thought it worth discussing here to explain my views and hash things out a bit.

As I asked were the statements false? That wasn't a "gotcha" question, I don't know myself. It seems that the correctness of the statements are the real test. If it's a lie then you have a legitimate basis to attack the source, but if one doesn't check then consider the possibility of a personal bias. Attacking without verifying isn't the best logical response.

The problem here is that you are engaging in reversal of burden.

When an article makes claims or presents statistics as factual, the burden is on the author, or the presenter of the article, to provide adequate substantiation for those claims or statistics. It is not the responsibility of those reading the article to disprove its claims, until and unless a reasonable job has been done in proving them in the first place.

When an article does not provide that backing, then its entire value rests solely on the credibility of the author. That credibility has to be assessed because there is nothing else behind the claims other than the author's personal viewpoint.

Now, it is certainly possible that an argument can be well made by someone without providing backup for his or her claims. But people have to decide whether it is worth even taking the time to respond based on the likelihood that the claims are accurate. This again comes down to the credibility of the author.

As an example, if I read an article making all sorts of claims about how fast food is really healthful, and the article doesn't provide scientific backing for what it says, I will assess it very differently if it is written by a registered nutritionist with 20 years of experience, or if it's written by a VP of public relations for a hamburger chain. If the nutritionist wrote it and I disagree with the claims, then it might be worth my while to try to counter-argue them. If it was written by a PR flack, I'm not going to bother.

And it's even worse on political topics. As I said in my initial post, an article on guns written by Sarah Brady or Wayne LaPierre better be well-backed or I'm not even going to consider it.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I find that too often discrediting the source becomes the only rebuttal in most threads. I do believe I have seen every possible news source, etc... declared biased at one time or another.

If you want to discredit a source fine, discredit them by pointint out the failures of their "facts". The recent thread we saw on eugenics was a good example of that. Essentially a point by point dismantling of the entire premise. In my opinion if you are going to discredit a source that is how it should be required to be. Not just blanket statements.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There's a difference between discrediting the source of a news report and the source of an opinion piece.

It all comes down to whether or not there is an easy way to verify the claims being made. If it's a legitimate news story, it's likely that it will be reported widely, and not just by people with a particular viewpoint. Furthermore, there will be specific evidence you can actually discuss. With vague opinion pieces, all you have is the author's word.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It is not the responsibility of those reading the article to disprove its claims, until and unless a reasonable job has been done in proving them in the first place.

Much depends on the needs and wants of the individual reading. I'm not arguing that one should be able to cite references, however the standard varies with the nature of material.

You have no reason to have known, but my current occupation was not a result of a my terminal degree, but my undergrad. I've a doctorate in biology, but unfortunately life dictates needs, and I had to fall back on what I do now because of financial circumstance. Such is life. The point is I know about citations and references, and what I would expect in a scientific paper or technical article is of higher expectations than a NY Times piece and that in terms of a blog. In the case of the latter my perspective is that it has a lower threshold of citation, is likely to be based on perspective (although I take a dim view of the purported objectivity of journalism these days as a whole), however that doesn't automatically mean what is claimed is untrue. It is however less formal, and if I were to use it I'd have checked what is said before posting. I think that's more the responsibility of the OP than the person writing a blog. Of course if it can be demonstrated that the claims are false or if they cannot be found, then as I say, let 'er rip, but again the cited piece is of a class qualitatively different. Yes, I know that many blogs are rigorous. Heaven knows we need more of that, but overall there are hierarchies of writing. Well, that's my opinion at least. No citations handy

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Another thing which occurs to me is it's good to have this forum because it offers the opportunity to have h higher standard. Thanks Charles for doing this.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Thanks, but it's a group effort and only here because the admins allowed it -- even though I suspect they didn't really want any more forums.

And no, I don't think anyone here expects documentation to the level found in scientific journals. But some would be nice -- especially when the author of the piece is highly partisan on the issue in question.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Thanks, but it's a group effort and only here because the admins allowed it -- even though I suspect they didn't really want any more forums.

And no, I don't think anyone here expects documentation to the level found in scientific journals. But some would be nice -- especially when the author of the piece is highly partisan on the issue in question.

What would be ideal is to have citizens hold themselves to a higher standard, but to accomplish that? That would be another topic of discussion : )

 

[randomrogue]

Charles if you want to test this idea lets start a thread about vaccine controversies. I've been debating this with friends and they throw the most asinine articles in my face. They are told, and think, that they are scientific articles but any scientist would take one look at them and quickly realize that they're not. If you read them they provide almost no useable information.

 

[randomrogue]

Any type of conspiracy theory is golden too but that should probably be left out of here. I had a "nice" conversation with a group of 18 year olds and the shit they spewed out was crazy. They were 100% absolutely convinced that this was all true.

1. Osama Bin Laden did not exist. Either that or he was the Prince of Saudi Arabia. They were mixed on this one.
2. The world trade centers were empty and they were controlled demolitions.
3. The Balkan war was started by the United States

There was a whole bunch of crazy shit about Gadafi and Saddaam but I can't remember. Either way people believe all kinds of crazy shit and will find sources to support their views.

This was like 8 guys and 1 girl. The girl didn't believe any of this and after I refuted everything with data and the girl backed me up I think it's safe to say that those guys aren't getting laid.

 

[waggy]

This thread is a perfect example:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2302135

The OP cites an opinion piece as fact for declaring obamacare a disaster. The article not only doesnt cite any sources but the author has a history of which includes working for a think tank, working directly with the tobacco industry to write a response to the healthcare debate in the 90's and she's been in the medical business where she would have profited from a non universal healthcare system.

Since no facts were presented and the article was opinion I think the only reasonable option would be to attack the source or give your own opinion.

I do agree the thread is a perfect example. sure the poster used a less then credible source. But instead of posting facts a few attacked him. personally to me it showed the them to be idiots and trying to deflect and change the subject (wich they did actually).

its a childish attack and does nothing for the argument.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

But instead of posting facts a few attacked him. personally to me it showed the them to be idiots and trying to deflect and change the subject (wich they did actually).

its a childish attack and does nothing for the argument.

Who attacked him? Post number please.

randomrogue -- go for it.

 

[waggy]

Who attacked him? Post number please.

randomrogue -- go for it.

go read the thread I'm not going to cut and paste the shit i answered you question on what i felt.. its a perfect example of what makes P&N such a hell hole. from a shitty source to attacks and deflection.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

go read the thread I'm not going to cut and paste the shit i answered you question on what i felt.. its a perfect example of what makes P&N such a hell hole. from a shitty source to attacks and deflection.

Yes, it's a good example of the problems with P&N.

But you accused someone of attacking the person who made the original post. Attacking a source is not the same as attacking a poster.

 

[spittledip]

There's a difference between discrediting the source of a news report and the source of an opinion piece.

It all comes down to whether or not there is an easy way to verify the claims being made. If it's a legitimate news story, it's likely that it will be reported widely, and not just by people with a particular viewpoint. Furthermore, there will be specific evidence you can actually discuss. With vague opinion pieces, all you have is the author's word.

Well to me it seems fairly obvious that if you want to use a source to prove something, you need a source that is known for facts alone, like BBC or NPR or NBC or some news source. However, as soon as an interpretation of those facts is presented on those news sources, they become suspect.

I do not think any source is good for "opinions", as any opinion is up for debate. Also, any interpretation of "facts" is up for debate as well.

However, if someone posts an opinion piece, not as a source of facts, but rather just to raise a point to discuss, you have an entirely different animal. If someone claims these things to be facts, it is really just a very simple matter of stating that the article posted is just an opinion piece, and not factual. To attack the source kind of diverts from the argument, so it really is inefficient and red herring-ish in terms of cultivating an effective discussion. Of course alot of people are not interested in effective discussions, they just want to be angry and right.

 

[soccerballtux]

Hm, I feel like everyone knows the answer to this question. Oh, this was probably just a thread to fill the forum, get things started.

 

[ivwshane]

As I asked were the statements false? That wasn't a "gotcha" question, I don't know myself. It seems that the correctness of the statements are the real test. If it's a lie then you have a legitimate basis to attack the source, but if one doesn't check then consider the possibility of a personal bias. Attacking without verifying isn't the best logical response. Please don't take this as an attack, but is it possible that you have a bias that masks you resist criticism of Obamacare? If so why is that? I mention it only as a point of self examination. I myself have a bias against it, so I'm not throwing stones, but I have reasons I can give. Again it's not an attack, and not even about you personally, but health is an emotional subject and all things that touch the heart may influence ones viewpoint and I've done that at times.

The whole basis of the article is based on a hypothetical the IRS used and is not an example of the cheapest plan nor was it an estimate.

http://news.investors.com/blogs-cap...5-obamacare-cheapest-plan-wont-cost-20000.htm

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The whole basis of the article is based on a hypothetical the IRS used and is not an example of the cheapest plan nor was it an estimate.

http://news.investors.com/blogs-cap...5-obamacare-cheapest-plan-wont-cost-20000.htm

If the statements were untrue or intentionally misleading then there certainly reason to be critical.

 

[DrPizza]

Thanks, but it's a group effort and only here because the admins allowed it -- even though I suspect they didn't really want any more forums.

And no, I don't think anyone here expects documentation to the level found in scientific journals. But some would be nice -- especially when the author of the piece is highly partisan on the issue in question.

I've wanted a forum like this for a long time - I thought long ago that the P&N could be turned into this, but even 8 years ago, I think it was too late.

Anyway, in my opinion, it boils down to this: if you're using a source for an opinion (rather than facts), and that source is known for not having very much credibility, then the burden is on you to show why this time, that source deserves some credit.