[N_trglctc_joe]

>Now that I have shown you the evidence about how people in the city are more likely to have attempted to reduce their meat consumption, are you willing to admit that your initial skepticism was completely and totally wrong?

Regardless of the accuracy of the original statement, I feel as though "initial skepticism" is ALWAYS the correct response to a claim made on the internet. If anybody is going to claim anything on a site like HN, they shouldn't have to provide evidence because they might not be trustworthy, but rather they should have to provide evidence so their statements can actually have something to stand on.

[stale2002]

> feel as though "initial skepticism" is ALWAYS the correct response

Here is the problem with that. I don't think you understand how toxic an eternal skeptic is to a conversation.

An eternal skeptic is someone who never makes any positive claims or reasons as for why they disagree with something that someone else said. All they do is repeat, over and over again "ummm, why don't you prove it!".

Yeah, no. If you disagree with something, then the honest thing to do is say specifically why you disagree with it, and to make positive claims of your own.

If someone just sits back, and refuses to engage with the argument, or give evidence as for why the other person is wrong, then what I usually do is give them the evidence that they asked for, and then make fun of them for not knowing about it in the first place.

Because if their initial skepticism was correct in the first place, then the skeptic would have had the guts to explain why they disagree, instead of just being a coward, by only repeating "prove it" a dozen times over.

It is ridiculous to expect someone to give a 30 page essay of facts and figures, for every single claim that you make.

Instead, the honest thing to do, is to say specifically what you think is incorrect, and give your reasons why, and then the conversation can go from there.

[N_trglctc_joe]

There's a difference between a "conversation" and an "internet exchange".

In person, I agree completely. Skepticism towards your friends/ family/ acquaintances can easily poison the discourse and ruin relationships. If I have a discussion with a person I know, then I should absolutely give them the benefit of the doubt, and take what they say at face value unless they say something I find literally incredulous.

When you're having a discussion online though, it's a completely different story. People say stupid stuff on the internet, and "stupid" is a spectrum that goes all the way to "well-intentioned and seemingly-logical but poorly-researched and false". Online, and on a site such as this which aims for a certain level of discourse, every claim should be backed up. There's always somebody who disagrees that is going to read your comment, and you should give them a reason to reconsider their initial position.

This is not an easy thing to do. I believe a lot of stuff without knowing immediately why. This forces me to better account for my ideas, which helps structure my thinking. I'm not a strong enough logician to make infallible arguments, but by trying to convince an eternal skeptic, I only make my own arguments better.

[EDIT: I gave you an upvote, since you were in the gray. Some others had downvoted you, but that was undeserved, since I think your disagreement was in good faith. Other people, please don't downvote stale's comment.]

[stale2002]

> When you're having a discussion online though, it's a completely different story.

> People say stupid stuff on the internet, and "stupid" is a spectrum

Ok, but if you ask for evidence, because you are skeptical and refuse to give any reason as for why you are skeptical, and I provide the evidence, then I get to call you stupid.

I get to say "Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, look how wrong you were, and how right I was, because you didn't believe something, that I knew what obviously true".

I am not saying that you can't be skeptical. Instead, I am saying that if you disbelieve a claim, then you need to say specifically why you are disbelieving.

Take a stance. Say why you think the other person is wrong. Don't be a coward and just say "I disbelieve you, but refuse to say why".

And if you do that, then I am going to give you that evidence that you asked for, and call you stupid for not giving your reason why you were skeptical in the first place.

I am asking nothing more of the skeptic than they are asking of me. Yes, I'll give you evidence, and treat you nicely. If you also gave a justification for your disbelief in the first place.