Epistemic legibility: being easy to argue with is a virtue

Re:Epistemic legibility: being easy to argue with is a virtue by awb on Friday March 25, 2022 @01:36PM (#30805025)

> I see examples of people demanding citations for reasoning that is part of a work, of people just not understanding something, or of only really being able to blindly follow based on province or authority without trying to reconcile back to what they know.

That’s a tricky one for me because I see a lot of utility in asking for sources:

a) Curiosity. Maybe I really want to know how this person came to believe what they did even if I’m pretty sure they’re wrong.

b) Challenge. A version of the Socratic Method, helping them learn through questioning their assumptions.

c) Learning. A genuine quest for knowledge, that perhaps might yield more unique or varied results than Google.

d) Depth. Possibly helping others in a public thread (or the author) realize that it might be an epistemically illegible argument requiring greater scrutiny, discussion or evidence.

I get that asking for sources can also be lazy or ill intentioned, but for the most part I don’t mind it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Epistemic legibility: being easy to argue with is a virtue by adfgadfgaery on Friday March 25, 2022 @02:32PM (#30805589)

I think you misunderstand OP. The purpose of citations is to prove facts. The argument made based on those facts does not need a citation.

Much of the time it isn't fair to ask for citations even for specific facts, but that's a separate problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Epistemic legibility: being easy to argue with is a virtue by nextaccountic on Saturday March 26, 2022 @09:22AM (#30811582)

> I think you misunderstand OP. The purpose of citations is to prove facts.

Those cases are covered by b)

But the person you're replying to pointed out other, non-adversarial reasons to ask for citations (which depending on the tone of the question, may be misinterpreted)

[ Parent | on HN ]