Critical Thinking & The Citation Needed Fallacy | TheRedPill

This one's more about logic and how people use "show me your studies" as a thought terminating cliche, rather than sexual strategy. Hence flaired as off topic. Enjoy!

https://illimitablemen.com/2017/05/26/critical-thinking-the-citation-needed-fallacy/

Excerpt:

The other day, a poster left a comment disputing the value of the writings at Illimitable Men due to the lack of studies and statistical data used to support the views espoused. Now, although I do not think one needs peer-reviewed studies to put forth observations and formulate opinions in relation to them; I am most intrigued by individuals who believe the absence of scientific evidence is sufficient grounds to invalidate a premise, for this is not only lazy thinking, but presumptive.

It is lazy because it permits the individual to dismiss a thing without consciously evaluating an argument based on its individual merits, and it is presumptive because it assumes contemporary science possesses the technological sophistication requisite to test all conceivable hypotheses. The latter is matter-of-factly untrue, for science in all its grandeur and mighty empiricism is as yet incapable of piercing the realm of metaphysics, which continues to defy quantification.

Consciousness remains an enigma to science, and for as long as this remains true, philosophy will remain hegemon of all things metaphysical and thereby spiritual in nature. This is precisely why philosophy exists, for it has repeatedly endured as a form of top-down investigation into the metaphysical substrate of reality for millennia, filling a vacuum of human need that religion embodies, but does not explain.

Religion is the symbolic mythologisation of the human metaphysical spirit into a myriad of stories designed to provide guidance, whereas philosophising is an evaluative process that attempts to make sense of the human soul and its cosmic abstractions via observation and reason. Philosophy is thus, by definition, not engaged in the politics of academic credentialism, nor bound to the empirical method as a means of discovery or conclusion forming.

Scientific materialism excludes the metaphysical, and is therefore hard-pressed to explain the aspects of humanity it cannot empirically reduce to a measurement. This is why people look to philosophy and religion to lead spiritually fulfilling lives rather than science, for empiricism is soulless in that it only claims what is measurable and experimentally replicable to be true, whilst holding what isn’t as untrue, or at the very least inconclusive.

Permalink

throw17453 8y ago

I am most intrigued by individuals who believe the absence of scientific evidence is sufficient grounds to invalidate a premise

Lack of scientific evidence for a position - whilst not sufficient grounds to invalidate it - is sufficient grounds to criticize that position, particularly if the person is presenting it as truth.

It is lazy because it permits the individual to dismiss a thing without consciously evaluating an argument based on its individual merits

Not neccesarily.

If you would consider scientific evidence existing that supports a position - as being a merit to it. Then it follows that lack of such evidence could be a way of consciously evaluating an argument as lacking in some merit.

The way you have phrased it - with "dismiss" - means I agree with your point. But that's putting it in the extreme, you can consider something to be undermined, because it lacks supporting scientific evidence, without dismissing it.

[Asking for citations // scientific evidence] implies that the individual dismissing a set of claims based on the absence of empirical evidence does not themselves hold beliefs that aren’t deductively valid. In practice this is untrue, and nothing more than a lazy way to refute premises one finds distasteful, for it is not the genuine nature of people to form beliefs solely on the basis they are backed by empirical evidence.

This is very accurate - but you've generalized. It is possible for someone to ask for scientific evidence for something - not as a means to undermine or dismiss, or to discredit that which is distasteful to them - but because they place an emphasis on empirical evidence when assessing the truth or value of a position.

This latter point is actually something Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris got caught up in, in a recent podcast. The difference between something being valuable - useful - having utility or a kind of "truth". And something being actually true in an empirical sense.

[deleted]

throw17453 8y ago

This was the first one: https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-is-true

And this where they came back to go over things:

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/meaning-and-chaos

IllimitableMan 8y ago

It is possible for someone to ask for scientific evidence for something - not as a means to undermine or dismiss, or to discredit that which is distasteful to them - but because they place an emphasis on empirical evidence when assessing the truth or value of a position.

It is possible, and it is likewise the base assumption for why people do this, but it's not the only reason they do this. In debate with someone who is fundamentally opposed to your position, the "where are your studies?" question is often used as a thought terminating cliche to dismiss the argument entirely without evaluating the argument's chain of reasoning, and it's this insincere use of the question that's fallacious. It's this I wish to highlight.

throw17453 8y ago

Very True.

However, when you're in a debate with someone fundamentally opposed to your position - There can be just as strong a motivation for you to assume they are being insincere - biased - using "logic" or "science" as a veil for what is actually emotions. As there is for them to actually be that way.

I did agree with a lot of what you wrote, could tell from your latter paragraphs that you've been influenced by some similar people, and ideas.

IllimitableMan 8y ago

However, when you're in a debate with someone fundamentally opposed to your position - There can be just as strong a motivation for you to assume they are being insincere - biased - using "logic" or "science" as a veil for what is actually emotions. As there is for them to actually be that way.

That's a great point. I guess it's metaphysically impossible to verify which is which either.

could tell from your latter paragraphs that you've been influenced by some similar people, and ideas.

This is intriguing. Who do I appear to have been influenced by?

throw17453 8y ago

This is intriguing. Who do I appear to have been influenced by?

The strongest sense I got in terms of people, was Jordan Peterson, a lot of what you wrote runs in alignment to ideas I have seen him espouse.

You also have a detatched, analytical view of the role that religion, beliefs, "values" have in terms of structuring peoples reality - informing their life, their meaning, and ordering people both on a psychological and cultural level.

This kind of perspective on it is very reminiscent of Nietzsche.

I also know, from coming across your aphorisms, that you have keen interest and understanding of power dynamics, manipulation. Yet see beyond it, to both assess and distill the underlying mechanisms at work - I can't point to any specific person or "view" here, but it's an interest and perspective I relate to.

IllimitableMan 8y ago

Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated.

[deleted] 8y ago

What is the scientific evidence you have that can show that lack of scientific evidence for a position is grounds for criticizing it? I've never seen a study done on this before...

TunedtoPerfection 8y ago

Criticizing an argument is not a scientific pursue, it is a logical pursuit. Therefore it falls under the rules of having a logical argument, and is not bound by scientific logic. If you decide to support your criticism of the argument, your supporting facts will have to follow scientific rigor, as all fact must. But the simple act of requiring burden of proof from the person who presents the argument is entire logical in nature.

You as the presenter of the idea have the burden of proof, not the other way around. There is no burden of proof when challenging an idea in a logical discussion. When you present an idea, in a logical setting, you better have facts to back it up. By trying to pass of the burden of proof to those questioning your claim you are committing a logical fallacy.

Also be very careful you don't slip down the slope and commit another fallacy known as appealing to authority. This is the fallacy MOST committed by SJW when trying to defend a stance they have.

Honestly if you want to shut down SJW bullshit left, right, and center just take a level 100 logic class. You'll be punching holes in their arguments without even trying after that.

throw17453 8y ago

This reminds me of the "Nihilists believe in nothing - which is in itself a belief - therefore not nihilism" line of argument.

Tie a position to it's own tail, in the hopes it will flail in absurdity trying to regain its balance....

You are more than welcome to throw out of the window, the view that scientific evidence holds any value in assessing the strength, truth and utility of a position.

It is quite rare for people to actually follow that path though - the ones that do tend to be strongly religious and hope the following statement suffices:

Science can't prove anything, even the scientists disagree, the things they thought 10 years ago are different now, there are some things it cant explain.

etc. etc.

In the hope of creating a false equivalency, that both their position, and the scientific position - are equally "just beliefs".

In light of the impact science - and scientific evidence - has had on advancing us, and on our understanding of the world, the cosmos, ourselves, technology, medicine, nature etc.

I'm going to suggest it is wise to axiomatically value it.

[deleted] 8y ago

Nah.

My point was that scientific knowledge is not the only source of knowledge that we have, and that our knowledge of the scientific method's validity is not actually scientific in and of itself.

throw17453 8y ago

My point was that scientific knowledge is not the only source of knowledge that we have

I'm aware - at no point have I suggested it is.

our knowledge of the scientific method's validity is not actually scientific in and of itself.

This point we disagree on. The effects - of the application of the scientific method - to our lives, have provided plenty of evidence for it's validity.

With the increasing application of science as holding greater value in our decision making, lives, and in advancing our understanding. We have flown to the moon, mapped the cosmos, cured diseases.... I could go on and on....

It has shown its validity in its results.

TunedtoPerfection 8y ago

Very little is absolutely known in the world. There is a major disconnect in what we "understand" as the world around us when viewed from a macroscopic view (relating to everything non sub-atomic) vs microscopic view (below sub-atomic).

Hell there is very compelling evidence that sub atomic particles will change their behavior based on whether or not they are being viewed, measured, or both.

The problem with advance scientific theories like that is there is a high barrier of entry to even discuss them with most people. As even up to basic physics courses at a collage level have to present ideas in a "physically perfect world" or 95% of the class wouldn't be able to pass the first exam.

JamesSkepp 8y ago

Hell there is very compelling evidence that sub atomic particles will change their behavior based on whether or not they are being viewed, measured, or both.

This is a misconception stemming from the misunderstanding a varioation of double slit experiment.

It's not like protons turn to neutrons or the quarks "do something different than what they usually do when" we're not watching.

TunedtoPerfection 8y ago

See that was an idea I was introduced to in lower level physics. Never made sense to me, but that is what I was taught in lower level physics.

This is part of the problem with the way we teach math and science, you basically have to unlearn a bunch of bullshit you get taught once you pass a certain threshold, just seems silly to me.

throw17453 8y ago

It's not like protons turn to neutrons or the quarks "do something different than what they usually do when" we're not watching.

Doesn't it actually show the opposite - that the mere act of observing which slit the photon travels through causes it to do something different than when not observed?

And that by observing you interact with the photon in a way which changes its resulting behavior?

JamesSkepp 8y ago

Right, what I meant is - it's not that the electron is doing something other than electron does. I can't see you right now, doesn't mean you turn into something other than human.

throw17453 8y ago

Ah I see your point - it doesn't suddenly change its fundamental nature, gotcha.

OGlancellannister 8y ago

I am most intrigued by individuals who believe the absence of scientific evidence is sufficient grounds to invalidate a premise, for this is not only lazy thinking, but presumptive."

Good point, although in the absence of scientific evidence, while it is impossible to invalidate a premise, I do find it hard to validate a premise as well.

The worrying question is what happens when academic studies continue to hold less and less value. The whole post-modern movement is trying to destroy evidence-based science. Take a look at Skeptic.com on the conceptual penis hoax to see how far some journals have gone. With the bulk of humanities infected with Marxism or Post-Modernism, "scientific," research from that sector often borders on pure delusion.

UnpluggedMan 8y ago

Any real scientist that knows shit about the philosophical foundations of science will straightforwardly admit it cannot tackle metaphysics. The questions asked in that branch in philosophy are simply not by definition the subject of scientific inquiry.

That being said, the lack of an ability to rigorously test metaphysical conclusions is in no small part why no real progress has been made in the subject since the Greeks. Every abstract thinker desperately wants to reduce it to a set of axioms from which a good, moral system by which to live one's life follows. Every philosopher to try their hand at creating such a system has failed miserably. Not every true claim can can be backed up by a peer-reviewed scientific study but those that can't are more suspect, and should be treated as such.

NeoreactionSafe 8y ago

Now, although I do not think one needs peer-reviewed studies to put forth observations and formulate opinions in relation to them; I am most intrigued by individuals who believe the absence of scientific evidence is sufficient grounds to invalidate a premise, for this is not only lazy thinking, but presumptive.

Be careful about the concept of peer review.

What that means is the corporation that funded the "research" wanted a certain outcome so they found someone corrupt enough to deliver a study which achieves the objectives of the corporation.

This is well known to be happening.

Crime is the first thing you must have your eyes on... there is a lot of crime in this world and corporate level crime is so common (as is government) that you must be very aware of it from the beginning. Don't be so naive as to think things are honest if they come from government or corporations. Be intellectually "street wise". Anticipate fraud and corruption.

The only path to Truth is the Trivium Method:

Gather evidence with an open mind and do not allow censorship.
Block all "peer pressure" which can cause corruption. Think for yourself.
Share your wisdom with those who are receptive to it. (Red Pill others)

JamesSkepp 8y ago

Thanks for giving bullshitters like NeoreactionSafe your support.

Scientific materialism excludes the metaphysical, and is therefore hard-pressed to explain the aspects of humanity it cannot empirically reduce to a measurement.

It's hard pressed, but not failing to do so. Compared to how old humanity is, modern science barely arrived on the scene and is still developing.

You wrote that science only works by un-proving things. That's not really accurate. Science explains things - by both proving something is true and that something is not true. Depends on what we're talking about. We disproved aether, we proved quarks. We disproved ulcers from food, we proved ulcers from bacteria.

By assumption you give rise to the idea that we should indulge in metaphysics or belief based ideas b/c science can't explain everything yet. You talk abut metaphysics - that's by definition the realm of imagination and it cannot be measured by science. Scolding science for not being able to explain stuff like that is absurd.

BigBrotherZiggy 8y ago

That wasn't the focus of his post, though. His critique is to people who, for lack of ability to stand up for their own points, use science as a religion. As you pointed out yourself, science is relatively new in human history, so there's a long way to go. Therefore, presuming that something not yet dealt with by it is automatically invalid stems from a dogmatic view of science. Ironically, an unscientific approach to science.

That to me seems to be the backbone of his idea: people who resort to science without having knowledge of it themselves, and hold that a) what has been researched to this day is set in stone and b) if it's not researched then it certainly will be. That's making a religion out of it. You can't be sure it will at any point be able to explain what it still isn't. That's not to discredit it though, it's seeing the scientific method for what it is.

Then he uses the example of metaphysics as something not yet tackled by science, so people shouldn't expect science to have an answer 100% of the time, unless they see it as a religion and like to think it will always find out everything there is to know(specially those who use it, as he put it himself, to terminate arguments they can't keep up with).

And sometimes we found ourselves in the middle of the road. TRP is a great example. Don't expect to see research on it. That doesn't mean we don't have scientists thinking about it, but if no papers are published, then "science hasn't tackled it". The middle men between researchers and common folk is who ultimately decides what gets out. Or, in the case of TRP, some people in the scientific community will have been so indoctrinated by BP that no middle man will be needed to avoid either the start or publishing of research. That's why TRP is the middle of the road: hardly ever there are means to get X ammount of random people to test it. What we do is share our personal experiences and points of view and try to reach common sense, that's how the sidebar came about, not by gathering psychologists to work on focus groups. And we know the sidebar is more reliable than practically any paper published by universities.

edit: formatting

JamesSkepp 8y ago

You can't be sure it will at any point be able to explain what it still isn't.

...therefore metaphysics. It's your human need to understand and categorize talking. If someone can't explain something he will latch onto anything, even absurd that provides explanation.

Don't expect to see research on it.

There is.

BigBrotherZiggy 8y ago

Yes, the will to understand things will drive us to latch onto something. Completely agree. But don't forget the lack of understanding itself makes it impossible to point out who's wrong or right. A lot of folks seem to quickly ridicule what they disagree with. But if there's no proof of the validity of either there's no point in it. It boils down to trying to be on top. If there's no certainty, let there be debate, without resorting to ridicule and the sort. Ridicule is normally a tool for those with no arguments. Shaming is very popular as we all know it.

Can you point me to some major "red pill research"? That's a problem with research you didn't address. For its very nature, science is prone to go the way of the most agreed upon statements. That's a problem when most don't see social dynamics for what they are. When all the research there is gets done by a few small universities here and there, it's not seen as something with the same validity as if, say, Ivy League researchers did the work. Of course that doesn't take people's bias into consideration, but that's how stuff works. Research by Harvard speaks louder than research by a community college.

solvire 8y ago

This is the age of relativism. What is necessary for "fact" is a critical mass of supporting information. All that is necessary to fabricate truth is to have the ability to create the metadata points which build that supporting information. What was it in brave new world. 65k recitations is a truth? What replaced metaphysics? Why not metadata.

Metadata gave us Trump. It works.

[deleted] 8y ago

Man, someone comes in here with actual logic and people just shit all over him.

-1

RPBulletDodger 8y ago

Nah bruh.

As much as I value the accuracy of much of what OP posts, this one is a miss.

When you cannot cite shit other than your own experience, that is when you cite your own experience. Because if your favorite peer is not you, than you have not fully digested the Red Pill. Shoulder shrugging is for low quality attention seekers.

But then again, unchecked narcissism is everywhere these days. That is where the critical thinking (introspective especially) skills are crucial, and putting those critical thoughts into a proper course of action are a must for any Red Pilled dude.

If you cannot back yourself up, then shut the fuck up.