You can use sources to strengthen a claim in a non-fallacious way, through inductive² reasoning. However, most people in Lemmy and Reddit don't; they want to eat the cake (use deductive¹ reasoning) and have it too (use the origin of a claim as part of the argument), and that's the genetic fallacy.

And, if I had to take a guess on why they do it, it's probably because:

inductive reasoning doesn't allow you to claim certainty or knowledge
inductive reasoning is messy, and it requires you to take multiple factors into account, to weight the likelihood of a certain statement to be true or false
even when dealing solely with inductive reasoning, it's better to look at why the sources are claiming something than to use the claim directly

So inductive reasoning introduces a lot of complexity and doesn't let you vomit certainty. And yet both userbases are full of people who want to lie to themselves that they know something and that reality is simple.

And that's actually a big deal. Because, when you accept the genetic fallacy as solid reasoning (it isn't), you're opening the door to a lot of shitty manipulative tactics.

Notes/clarification:

Deductive reasoning: if you start with true premises, and follow a correct logic, then your conclusion will be always true. For example: X is always true when A is true. We know that A is true, thus X is true
Inductive reasoning: you basically "weight" a bunch of factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of a certain statement to be true. Even with optimal factors and reasoning, there's a chance that your conclusion might be incorrect. For example: *X is often true if A is true. X is sometimes true if B is true. X is usually false if C is false. We know that A and B are true, and that C is false, thus X is likely true." (emphasis on "likely")

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I think I know what you're saying, though maybe an example might help. But we're talking about comments on the Web here, not a scientific paper. Most of us can not be subject matter experts and must use inductive reasoning to get by in life. And often have to depend on other sources like articles from trusted sources or scientific papers we're not very equipped to vet to shape our understanding of the world.

Just saying maybe your expectations are too high for a public Web forum.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

If people were using inductive reasoning, that would be fine. They aren't - as I said they're trying to eat the cake and have it too: "expert said so, then it's true/false lol lmao".

And in the process they rush towards certainty on things that might be completely false, often because they're being manipulated to do so - because it's trivially easy to claim authority over a subject, or to stain someone else's authority over it.

Just saying maybe your expectations are too high for a public Web forum.

My expectations - not just for web forums, but also for real life - is that, when we don't know something, we shouldn't claim that it's true or false. It's fine to conjecture, it's fine to say what you think/guess, but not to make a hard statement, unless you have good grounds to do so.

And inductive reasoning does not give you those good grounds to claim certainty.

However, I think that in web forums this rubs your typical user the wrong way. They want to believe that they know something, but aren't willing to spend the necessary effort to do so.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

I would appreciate more people discussing things with these ideas in mind.

Between the echo chamber sentiment, and people's difficulty with empathy or accepting there could be other view points, it's hard to maneuver around hot topics and learn anything.

The extreme left sentiment has been repeatedly mentioned, but I'm honestly still hoping to learn other people's perspectives here.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

I see what you mean. I'll try to give an example.

I tend to be skeptical of folks when I know they're incentivized monetarily, emotionally, or socially to believe a certain thing but I do my best not to discount them out of hand. I think most people have a tendency to write folks off completely when it's more useful to accept uncertainty. To know that a piece of information might be right even if it challenges my worldview. Unfortunately uncertainty is kinda hard work.

For instance, the US has a lot of incentive to make alternative economic systems seem awful. Anytime a pro US media source like Radio Free Asia says something negative about China. I have to accept that:

They've lied in the past
They're incentived to lie again
It's still possible they're telling the truth

I have to accept that balance.

This works well for situations that don't effect me personally. On the other hand, if there's a person who has a predatory reputation in my friend group, I don't have the luxury of giving them the benefit of the doubt. They are a present danger to myself and the people around me.