I’d like to see a moderator address what I’ve now asked three times in different forms.
It’d probably get their attention if someone posted with similar assumptions and assertions as that OP, but about guns.
Something like:
“People get guns because they are insecure about their dick size. Is there any scientific research that having a gun makes your penis grow? This isn’t about whether you think having a gun makes you more endowed, I would like citations to studies supported by science that guns increase your manhood. Bringing up any other reasons that people have guns will be rejected, I only want studies showing whether having a gun supplements the male phallus.”
My concern is that since both moderators are of a scientific bent, perhaps they may have a bit of a blind spot here, that they tend to favor an embedded premise that if something cannot be supported by empirical evidence then it has no valid foundation. That’s a perspective I’d share if we were talking about (say) how parents should deal with allergies. And that broad inclination is appropriate to the FQ forum. But not always, and not here.
I don’t mean to be patronizing, but I know these are two very smart moderators, and I’m struggling to understand why they don’t share the concerns that most of use see with the assumptions and false premises embedded in this OP.
To reiterate, an FQ thread is not a Google search, and “facts” do not exist in a context-free vacuum. Surely it behooves us to ensure that facts are presented in FQ with sufficient context that their significance may be understood correctly. And if establishing that context turns out to be so controversial that it overwhelms the thread, the discussion should not be shut down - the thread should be moved out of FQ.
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
Or, neither of them see that “premise” embedded in the post to begin with.
Chronos told you so explicitly, post #2 sentence 1: “I see no such assumption in the OP or in their subsequent posts to the thread.”
I don’t see it, for my part - not as a premise and not as an assumption on Tired_and_Cranky’s part. One could ascribe the position you describe as an underlying motive, but unless you see something I don’t, to call it a “premise” is idiosyncratic usage of language.
The usual definition of “premise” is some sort of proposition used to support an argument or conclusion. (In formal logic there are additional requirements.)
Tired_and_Cranky’s original post contains exactly one explicit conclusion.
- “This [thread] is [in] FQ.” (premise)
- If “[t]his [thread] is [in] FQ”, then “[t]his thread is not a thread for your guesses about whether [the parenting strategy described] works or is beneficial.” (hidden premise)
- “This [thread] is not a thread for your guesses about whether [the parenting strategy described] works or is beneficial.” (conclusion)
engineer_comp_geek has confirmed that the above is what you call a “reasonable restriction on scope”. Furthermore the above premises are distinct from the one you identify as dubious.
Tired_and_Cranky also hints at a number of independent propositions. These are implied through questions, without the support of arguments and without endorsing them as his or her own position:
- This parenting strategy…
- reduces rates of sexual abuse
- leads to earlier discovery of sexual abuse
- leads to better adult relationships
- reduces depression among older kids
- strengthens kids’ relationships
- has positive effects
These are potential hypotheses or conclusions for scientific research, which research Tired_and_Cranky ultimately seeks. Tired_and_Cranky does not support these with arguments or reveal his (or her) evaluation of them. You are not forced to accept these as premises because they are presented as questions, not statements of fact.
What line of reasoning do you see implicit in the question that assumes any valid approach to parenting must derive from rigorous studies of outcomes?
Here is a line of reasoning implicit in the post:
Emily McCombs (writing for Slate’s parenting advice column) offers expert parenting advice.
Expert parenting advice is not necessarily supported by reliable scientific studies.
The expert parenting advice Emily McCombs offers is not necessarily supported by reliable scientific studies.
The expert parenting advice Emily McCombs offers is teaching children about consent and bodily autonomy by, among other things, deciding not to force physical intimacy (hugs and kisses).
Teaching children about consent and bodily autonomy by, among other things, deciding not to force physical intimacy (hugs and kisses) is not necessarily supported by reliable scientific studies.
The goal (“idea”) of teaching children about consent and bodily autonomy is to help maintain personal boundaries later and, among other things, decrease the likeliness of sexual manipulation and abuse. (dubious)
The goal of teaching children about consent and bodily autonomy by, among other things, deciding not to force physical intimacy (hugs and kisses) is to help maintain personal boundaries later and, among other things, decrease the likeliness of sexual manipulation and abuse.
This was my initial reading of the post (and provided cite) which leads directly to the factual question asked, no other premises involved: “Is there any scientific or sociological evidence that this parenting strategy reduces rates of sexual abuse?”
I marked one premise as dubious. It’s not the one you identified. The Slate piece didn’t actually mention sexual abuse, it is written as if teaching kids about bodily autonomy is a self-evident benefit in and of itself. I did preliminary research and found the premise well supported. Aside from myriad blogs and such, one small (n=7) study involved teaching young kids about non-sexual physical boundaries, and they cited protection against future sexual abuse as a potential benefit. (The study* measured lesson retention, not correlation with sexual abuse.) However if I couldn’t find anybody touting decreased likeliness of sexual abuse as a benefit for teaching kids about bodily autonomy and consent, then I think it would be appropriate to ask for a citation - after the factual question had been answered directly (or after I had done my best to do so).
I disagree with @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness that the Tired_and_Cranky presumes parenting based on scientific research is more effective than parenting not based on scientific research. Where is the evidence that Tired_and_Cranky presumes so?
On my first read I assumed Tired_and_Cranky has had the experience of asking someone if something is supported by scientific data, and getting personal anecdotes instead; that he (or she) is guarding against that here.
~Max
* Bell, Marlesha C., “Changing the Culture of Consent: Teaching Young Children Personal Boundaries” (2020). USF Tampa Graduate Theses and Dissertations.
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/8435