Now that I’ve re-read everything a couple times I think I understand your main concern, but I’m not able to square it with the particular assumption you reference. Instead I can apply it to a different statement from the same post.
In summary, as far as FQ netiquette goes, I frown upon this kind of statement but won’t go so far as to say it is inappropriate. A response challenging this, however, is likely inappropriate unless worked in as a minor aside in a more comprehensive on-topic post.
Not a moderator, my opinions are my own, all that jazz. Long explanation in spoiler below.
Long explanation (click to show/hide)
There are a number of propositions presented in Tired_and_Cranky’s first post from the linked thread:
- There is a trend in contemporary parenting which recommends that parents teach their kids about bodily autonomy and consent to contact.
- Some parents help their kids establish and maintain boundaries about physical contact by letting the child refuse hugs and kisses from relatives.
- Some parents use this childrearing technique to help their children develop personal boundaries and to help guard against sexual manipulation and abuse.
- There are lots of articles about this parenting strategy.
- “Experts” imply they believe this parenting strategy leads to better outcomes.
- Psychology and sociology treats many unreliable studies as definitive research.
- In the absence of data, some people pretend personal anecdotes are data.
I can also guess at one implied (hidden) proposition,
- Just because an “expert” believes something, does not make it true.
The member vouches for the truth of the above propositions when he (or she) posts them as facts.
Tired_and_Cranky provided one citation to support some of the above propositions to some extent. If you think you need clarification or additional citations on the above in order to answer the topic question, I think you would be justified in asking in-thread. For example, I think this would be fine:
“I have some experience in this field and access to scientific journals, but I’ve never heard of this trend. Emily McCombs’s column was interesting but she notes that it is a new parenting concept so there might not be any large studies yet. Slate also has a reputation for heterodoxy although this may not apply to its parenting advice column. Can you give me another example of an expert who promotes this parenting strategy? If I read more articles about it I might find some key words and phrases to help search the scientific literature.”
On the other hand I think this response would violate FQ netiquette,
“Cite that ‘psychology and sociology research is a real mixed bag with lots of unreliable studies treated as definitive’?”
Why don’t I approve of this post? First and foremost it potentially de-rails the discussion from a focused research request into a general debate about the reliability of social sciences. Two, it is a low-effort nitpick of a relatively high-effort post. In my experience it is inappropriate to nitpick before the main question has been addressed, unless you go to lengths to demonstrate interest in the topic or otherwise acknowledge your inability to respond to anything else.
Tired_and_Cranky’s proposition about psychology/sociology having unreliable studies is ultimately irrelevant to the topical question. That is to say, answering the topical question does not imply acceptance of this particular dubious premise. If you are compelled to act when someone says something wrong on the internet, work it in as an aside while answering the topic question. If you can’t answer the topic question and have no purpose responding in FQ except to nitpick with some side point, maybe reexamine your motivation for participating in that subforum. You could create a topic in GD or IMHO, or call out a specific poster in the BBQ Pit. Backlinks will notify people following the original discussion. At the very least, if you must nitpick and fulfill no other purpose, phrase it as a “nitpick” or disagreement rather than prodding the person for extended discussion. That way you aren’t actively hijacking the discussion.
There is something to say about Tired_and_Cranky’s posting of “psychology and sociology research is a mixed bag with lots of unreliable studies treated as definitive.” This statement, presented as fact, is difficult to disprove (cannot prove a negative) and may be mildly offensive to experts in those fields (the target audience for Tired_and_Cranky’s post, mind you). My personal opinion is that while ideally the original poster would have omitted that line, my personal experience in life is that mild skepticism is endemic and outright censorship is neither desirable nor practicable. Doctors are expected to put up with mild skepticism of medicine. Psychologists are expected to put up with mild skepticism of psychology. Economists are expected to put up with mild skepticism of economics. et cetera. The fact that a person is coming to you for expert advice is a step in the right direction, possibly the best foot in the door you can ever get. The statement, while potentially mildly offensive, also provides some context that may help an expert tailor his or her answer to Tired_and_Cranky’s skepticism.
~Max