# People requesting a cite? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [October 19, 2013, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-requesting-a-cite/671668 "2013-10-19T18:45:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mr\_Quatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bc8723/32.png) [@Mr\_Quatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Quatro)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2013, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-requesting-a-cite/671668/1 "2013-10-19T18:45:01Z")
Is this like check and checkmate if you don’t provide one? I have seen other people in other threads us this word ‘cite’ and now they have requested one from me, but when I gave one they said it was too old or not new enough to warrant an intelligent discussion. Fair enough so far … I did a search of FAQ’s without finding any explanation of this request. I politely ask the moderator Marley23 for an explanation and he politely gave me one and then another gentleman came forth with an explanation of his own that I have quoted: Kimstu Guest post 130 from: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=705109&page=3](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=705109&page=3) > [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by Mr Quatro I guess I am a newbie I don’t understand all the fuss about a cite or having to have one or having to have one that everyone agrees with, but I will take the time to read up on it in the rules section. > > As Marley23 explained, the basic principle is simple: if you make some assertion of fact, such as “Eleven thousand people suddenly developed automotive transmission malfunctions as soon as they signed up for Obamacare”, and some other poster finds that assertion implausible or suspect, then the other poster asks you for a cite. > > And if you provide a convincing reliable source for your assertion, then the debate proceeds with that assertion generally accepted as fact. If you don’t or can’t, then the debate proceeds with that assertion generally discarded as untrue or unsupported. > > The purpose of this is to keep discussions in the Great Debates forum anchored in a common basis of evidence-supported factual knowledge, so they don’t degenerate into a pointless cacophony of contradictory assertions with no rational way to choose between them. If searched wrong and it was in your data banks … I am sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2013, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-requesting-a-cite/671668/2 "2013-10-19T19:13:58Z")
What, exactly, is your question? ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2013, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-requesting-a-cite/671668/3 "2013-10-19T19:22:01Z")
> [@Mr\_Quatro](#): > > Is this like check and checkmate if you don’t provide one? seems to be the question - which, based on the rest of the post appears to be ‘asked and answered’. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2013, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-requesting-a-cite/671668/4 "2013-10-19T19:26:02Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > What, exactly, is your question? TLDR: > [@Mr\_Quatro](#): > > Is this like check and checkmate if you don’t provide one? It sounds to me likes he’s asking what happens if someone asks you for a cite and you don’t give them [a good] one. As an example: If in an argument about public schools I say that public schools have more drug addicted graduates then private schools. Naturally, someone will ask me for a cite. If I don’t provide one, are we done with my argument or can I continue to use it? Why Mr Quatro is asking, I don’t know, seems it was pretty well explained in his OP. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2013, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-requesting-a-cite/671668/5 "2013-10-19T19:30:14Z")
You can, of course, make any argument you like, using any amount of evidence that you like. But on this board, if your evidence is insufficient, then people won’t take you as seriously. So really, the question is how seriously do you want to be taken, and by whom? ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2013, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-requesting-a-cite/671668/6 "2013-10-19T19:30:25Z")
You can continue to use it- but once somebody calls BS, do you want to? :dubious: ETA- \*\*Chronos \*\*said it better, and in ninja style too… ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Quatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bc8723/32.png) [@Mr\_Quatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Quatro)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-requesting-a-cite/671668/7 "2013-10-19T19:42:57Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > What, exactly, is your question? The question is simple … why don’t you put the answer I quoted from Marley23 and Kimstu in FAQ’s? ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-requesting-a-cite/671668/8 "2013-10-19T19:55:37Z")
> [@Mr\_Quatro](#): > > The question is simple … why don’t you put the answer I quoted from Marley23 and Kimstu in FAQ’s? Because it isn’t a board rule, and it’s simply common sense, not just on the SDMB but everywhere, that you should back up your assertions with facts and cites, just like [The Credible Hulk](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5eldAf-6hSM/T8jGzCMe6-I/AAAAAAAAHvA/vO18j1s5vqI/s1600/credible+hulk.jpg). ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2013, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-requesting-a-cite/671668/9 "2013-10-19T20:01:40Z")
> [@Mr\_Quatro](#): > > The question is simple … why don’t you put the answer I quoted from Marley23 and Kimstu in FAQ’s? We don’t have it in our Frequently Asked Questions because the question is not frequently asked. 😉 In fact, this is the first time I can recall it coming up. It’s pretty obvious. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2013, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-requesting-a-cite/671668/10 "2013-10-19T20:43:42Z")
> [@Mr\_Quatro](#): > > The question is simple … why don’t you put the answer I quoted from Marley23 and Kimstu in FAQ’s? cite for that question being in the OP? ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2013, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-requesting-a-cite/671668/11 "2013-10-19T20:44:40Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > Because it isn’t a board rule, and it’s simply common sense, **not just on the SDMB but everywhere** , that you should back up your assertions with facts and cites, just like [The Credible Hulk](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5eldAf-6hSM/T8jGzCMe6-I/AAAAAAAAHvA/vO18j1s5vqI/s1600/credible+hulk.jpg). Bolding mine. can we get a cite for that? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2013, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-requesting-a-cite/671668/12 "2013-10-19T20:47:40Z")
It is a constant struggle to perceive what is in front of your nose, and in that sense it isn’t obvious. Nobel Laurette Daniel Kahneman makes a distinction between [system 1 and system 2 thinking](http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/dec/13/thinking-fast-slow-daniel-kahneman). System 1 thinking is fast: “…it’s intuitive, associative, metaphorical, automatic, impressionistic, and it can’t be switched off.” I suspect it’s the source of most ideology and perception about the world. System 2 is slow, lazy and tires easily. “To set it going now, ask yourself the question “What is 13 x 27?”” Most of us believe we are system 2, but actually we are system 1. System 2 is “…a supporting character who believes herself to be the lead actor and often has little idea of what’s going on.” What we do on this board is System 2. Unsubstantiated assertions are worthless, no matter how firmly you believe them. We don’t know the poster’s track record, and furthermore most of us know that we don’t track our own record of predictions particularly well. So to evaluate a position we need to examine the logic of the argument and the supporting evidence for the key contentions. You don’t need a citation that the sky is blue. So I will respectfully disagree with Colibri. A FAQ on rhetoric, valid argumentation, and the science of persuasion would be extremely useful. It is not on this board because the underlying material is not yet understood, though it has been studied methodically since before the days of Socrates. Admittedly somebody could summarize the state of current knowledge on the subject, but I don’t know anyone with that level of intelligence and expertise. There is a pernicious idea that’s widespread in US society. It is that since everybody has a right to their own opinion, all opinions have an underlying equality to them. No. Some claims about the world simply match the world better than others. And the application of training, hard work and the experience of humanity will produce far better results on average than non-expert judgment. It’s not that the public is inferior: I’m saying that all of us have our areas of expertise and ignorance and that the wise learn to distinguish the two. Populists and demagogues are pretty much defined by their contempt for that distinction. ---
**Author:** ![JBDivmstr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b4bc9f/32.png) [@JBDivmstr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JBDivmstr)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2013, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-requesting-a-cite/671668/13 "2013-10-19T20:53:15Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > It is a constant struggle to perceive what is in front of your nose, and in that sense it isn’t obvious. > … > > It’s not that the public is inferior: I’m saying that all of us have our areas of expertise and ignorance and that the wise learn to distinguish the two. Populists and demagogues are pretty much defined by their contempt for that distinction. Bravo! Very well said, IMHO. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2013, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-requesting-a-cite/671668/14 "2013-10-19T20:54:18Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > Because it isn’t a board rule, and it’s simply common sense, not just on the SDMB but everywhere, that you should back up your assertions with facts and cites, just like [The Credible Hulk](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5eldAf-6hSM/T8jGzCMe6-I/AAAAAAAAHvA/vO18j1s5vqI/s1600/credible+hulk.jpg). > [@aNewLeaf](#): > > Bolding mine. can we get a cite for that? :dubious: “[You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.](http://pelalusa.blogspot.com/2008/04/youre-entitled-to-your-own-opinion-but.html)” Paraphrase. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Also James R. Schlesinger. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2013, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-requesting-a-cite/671668/15 "2013-10-19T22:33:00Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > So I will respectfully disagree with Colibri. A FAQ on rhetoric, valid argumentation, and the science of persuasion would be extremely useful. I didn’t say it might not be useful, just that the question isn’t frequently (in fact rarely if ever) asked. But even if we had one, I doubt that many people would read it, particularly those who are most in need of such instruction. Instead, what we offer is learning by experience through participation on the board. (Admittedly, there are many here, including some regular posters, who haven’t picked up the hang of it yet.;)) ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-requesting-a-cite/671668/16 "2013-10-20T13:26:26Z")
We frankly have too many FAQs already, and they don’t get read, so adding another that doesn’t come up often, well, it seems counter-productive. While I don’t disagree that a set of FAQ on “rhetoric, valid argumentation, and the science of persuasion” would be useful for many people, a quick Google-search yields many sites that already contain such info.