I am entitled to evidence to support your points before I should be expected to agree that your point is valid and true.
By
Rachel
on August 11, 2008
I hold that one may always ask for evidence to support someone's facts in a disagreement and there is generally nothing wrong with asking for evidence. The context for this is in non-time sensitive emergencies and with a conversation of equals where nobody has signed away their right to ask questions (such as in the military).
For example, if we disagree, and you tell me you are right because more blue pens are sold than black pens, I am going to ask you to provide evidence that more blue pens are sold than black pens. I have no idea what the pen sales for different colors are in different areas, but if I have reason to not think you necessarily know either, then I'm going to ask you to provide evidence for your statement before I accept it. Then if it turns out that more blue pens are sold and that that is relevant to our disagreement, I might change my mind, but I don't just immediately trust what other people state as fact. Often people are wrong. And I believe that it is right and proper to require evidence or to not accept the fact as fact until evidence can be provided.
Agreed
19
1
95.0% 5.0%This claim was inspired by
- Rachel's comment on When you tell someone to CTSASHFIF, and they do, and it gets substantially more agrees than disagrees, an apology is probably in order.
Similar claims
- 6-0 I am not necessarily willing to validate comments unless i receive sufficient supporting evidence.
- 8-3 Proving the fallacy of an argument does not disprove its conclusion; it only proves the unsound reasoning of the argument itself.
- 36-1 You can either refute someone's argument or ask that the argument cease, to do both together is rude.
- 27-0 Appealing to authority can support an argument, provided the authority is competent in the relevant field, correctly interpreted, unbiased, and not a nutbar.
- 26-2 Building an argument piece by piece is a reasonable use of jyte.
Discussion (11)
I am entitled to RECEIVE? evidence to support your COMMENTS?<points> before I should be expected to agree that your COMMENT?<point> is valid and true.
is this what you mean?
I believe that is a correct interpretation.
Someone else may not provide evidence for their points, but if they do not, then I should not be expected to grant that their points are true. So, I am entitled to evidence backing up their points before the argument proceeds with those points being accepted as true, should I question the points.
Claims inspired by this comment
I am not necessarily willing to validate comments unless i receive sufficient supporting evidence.Entitled, indeed. You get what you're given, young lady. We are now under authoritarian command.
Dewe, yes, entitled. Didn't you read the claim and comment. If it is not given, then the point is not accepted. It is not that one must provide evidence, just that one must provide evidence when it is asked for if one wants me to actually accept your point as valid.
CTSASHFIF. Look, I just destroyed your argument in 10 keystrokes.
On a more serious note, that phrase has become a catchphrase which is often not used in the sense it was originally used.
I made this claim because someone said CTSASHFIF. That is this claim. And it is 10 to 1 for currently. So, it flies.
Yes, that is before I made my last claim. And in all fairness, I won't use it again soon, though this claim is not necessarily about if CTSASHFIF is civil, which was what most of the comments on the inspiring claim were about.
Yes, what you are talking about is unrelated. If you want to have a conversation on a different topic, perhaps the topic from the claim that inspired this one, you should have it there or in your own claim. I am not good at guessing what you mean when it isn't in your words and you are talking about something unrelated to the claim you are commenting in.
Welp, there goes the conversation. I don't have much to say on this claim. There isn't much to say on this claim. I don't want to make a claim for each time I want to have a discussion, but I'll bow out of this one.
Evidence should be expected to validate a claim, but a lack of evidence on behalf of the proponant does not invalidate a claim.
Lack of evidence in general neither validates nor invalidates a claim; but the claim should be considered a hypothesis at best.
True that lack of evidence does not mean the claim is false, but I am not going to accept it as true if someone else claims something I doubt and they have no evidence. Without evidence there is no reason to change my mind on the topic.