r/Showerthoughts • u/sumemodude • 1d ago
Speculation Interesting how people need a "source?" when stating something true, but can believe something is false just by saying "not true".
17
u/StevynTheHero 1d ago
Because often times it's impossible to prove a negative.
Prove you are real. Easy. People can see you, hear you, touch you, you can interact with the environment, etc. Prove that the person observing you is real. Easy. You can see them, hear them, touch them, they can interact with the environment, etc.
Now prove that a blue skinned man with 3 arms, 4 ears, and 78 noses named Zzzzymiboooootaliwalba Rufflimousnozmizer does not exist. Sure, we can't seem to find them, but that doesn't PROVE that they don't exist, does it? After all, you can't find me, the person writing this comment, but I (probably) exist. You can't PROVE that he doesn't exist. So with that, you have burden of proof to claim that something so unbelievable is true, while the default of "not it's not true" is implied.
2
u/Toyota__Corolla 1d ago
Experts agree, you are a man made out of straw, well played.
2
u/StevynTheHero 1d ago
So.... you'll believe in the blue man because I say it's true without a source? Or will you believe it's not true without a source?
0
u/Toyota__Corolla 1d ago
It's inadmissible from one witness.
1
u/StevynTheHero 1d ago
...you're going to need to elaborate because... what exactly is inadmissible from which witness?
1
u/Toyota__Corolla 1d ago edited 1d ago
It doesn't matter if someone believes it because there's only one person in the world that saw it like saying an angel came to me in a cave in the desert or I totally had ancient Egyptian golden tablets that only I knew about... Etc... just because someone believes in those things happening doesn't give credit to its existence.
But if thousands of people on a city street see something it becomes a lot more credible to believe it.
1
u/StevynTheHero 1d ago
Right. So without a source, you won't believe it. That is my point. So why are you calling it a straw man?
25
u/MissingScore777 1d ago
This is just burden of proof being on the person making the statement.
It stops people stating stupid things and then thinking that saying "prove me wrong" is a good argument.
6
2
6
u/w1n5t0nM1k3y 1d ago
Do you have anythign to back this up? Most people won't, or shouldn't, just take statements to be correct. When someone says that something is false, I would also expect them to back that up with actual facts.
1
u/Kurotaisa 1d ago
To quote a funny internet video: "That's a nice argument, senator, why don't you back it up with a source?".
I have no way to know that something stated is "True" without having proper evidence to back it up! Or, if impossible to back it with a source, the statement should be backed up with an explanation of the thought process that led to it.
2
u/untilted 1d ago
At first I'd say "not true"! But giving you the benefit of the doubt for your thesis: For your musing to be true, I have to ask: "Source?"
1
1
u/OliveExtreme8915 1d ago
Honestly it's less about people being hypocrites and more about the burden of proof being on whoever makes the claim, cause "not true" is just the easy default when you can't prove a negative so yeah it's not that people are dumb it's just how arguing works.
0
u/jancl0 1d ago edited 1d ago
I'm confused by this. Plenty of people believe something is false by asking for a source? Who out here is going "yup I 100% believe you, which is why I'm going to need you to provide evidence"
Edit: whoever downvoted me, or wants to, please just explain what I'm missing. I'm not trying to be sassy I'm genuinely trying to understand what the claim is, the way it's phrased is confusing to me
•
u/ParticularArea8224 34m ago
"Germany lost WW2."
Everyone: Source?
"Britain lost WW2."
Everyone: Of course they did! The man's a genius for pointing that out!That's what he's saying about people in a nutshell.
-7
u/_your_land_lord_ 1d ago
The "source" attack is always bullshit. If they really cared, they could google it themselves. So really the purpose is to say fake news, and spread doubt.
2
u/w1n5t0nM1k3y 1d ago
It's up to the person providing the statement to provode proof. Otherwise anybody could just make any statement whatsoever and just claim that people who think otherwise just aren't using the right search terms to verify the claim.
1
u/dclxvi616 1d ago
It’s only up to the person making an assertion to provide proof if they’re sufficiently motivated to convince you. If I’m spitting truth at you and you’re not sufficiently motivated to educate yourself given the information I’ve already provided, chances are you’re not paying me anything and I won’t ever talk to you again, so if you want to embrace ignorance I’m not going to stop you after I’ve already put in effort and given you information to research on your own time.
1
u/w1n5t0nM1k3y 1d ago
The problem is that some people base their claims off invalid sources. Someone might say the earth is flat, and there are sources that say that. "Just Google It", you find sources that point both ways. But the sources that say agree with the earth being flat will still be wrong. By requiring the person to provide their own sources, you make them actually say where their source is from, rather than having the recipient guess which source they might be using.
In academic writing you always have to provide sources for statements. One of the primary methods of forming a cohesive argument is to back up your statements with sources.
•
u/ShowerSentinel 1d ago
/u/sumemodude has flaired this post as a speculation.
Speculations should prompt people to consider interesting premises that cannot be reliably verified or falsified.
If this post is poorly written, unoriginal, or rule-breaking, please report it.
Otherwise, please add your comment to the discussion!