Claims of authority

[TiggrToo]

How can one handle a situation where a user claims they are an authority on a subject being discussed but such claim is questionable by others?

Is this something that we’re not allowed to ask about and let it lie? It would seem that if a user here claims to have experience on a subject and that another user feels that there is cause to doubt that, such a claim could fall under the citation rule.

I get it is dodgy ground, but I do also feel it’s important because if someone claims to have training in say Computer Graphics but their posts clearly show otherwise, how does one challenge this without derailing a post into the relm of potential off-topic land?

 

[Juicy Box]

How can one handle a situation where a user claims they are an authority on a subject being discussed but such claim is questionable by others?

I am not sure what you are expecting forum members to do, post their resume with references? Also, just because someone has actual credentials in a particular field of study doesn't automatically make them right.

If the governments, health authorities, journalists, fact checkers, etc. often make claims that are questionable by others, why would some (relatively) tiny internet forum be any different.

I am not even sure how one would expect MR to somehow monitor and regulate their members' claimed credentials.

A general rule of thumb to use on the forum (and the internet in general) is take anything with a grain of salt. It is good to be skeptical, especially now.

 

[TiggrToo]

I am not sure what you are expecting forum members to do, post their resume with references? Also, just because someone has actual credentials in a particular field of study doesn't automatically make them right.

If the governments, health authorities, journalists, fact checkers, etc. often make claims that are questionable by others, why would some (relatively) tiny internet forum be any different.

I am not even sure how one would expect MR to somehow monitor and regulate their members' claimed credentials.

A general rule of thumb to use on the forum (and the internet in general) is take anything with a grain of salt. It is good to be skeptical, especially now.

Becuase others can be led to believe in someone’s authority and lend more credence to their words than perhaps should be given.

Especially if said person makes claims that are demonstrably doubful at best, or provably untrue at worst.

 

[Juicy Box]

Becuase others can be led to believe in someone’s authority and lend more credence to their words than perhaps should be given.

Like I said, the internet should be looked at with a skeptical eye.

Even if people have the credentials, that doesn't automatically make them right. If MR would somehow manage and verify credentials of their members (doubtful), people with credentials are wrong all the time.


This kind of reminds me of a thread that was made in this sub-forum a few weeks ago with a MR member complaining about MR posting rumors from a "sketchy" source.

The MR member was saying that MR should be above posting a rumor from the sketchy source that everyone knew was false, and keep posting stuff from only the well known leakers with good track records.

Turns outs, that sketchy source was 100% right, making that thread a great example of why posting stuff, even sketchy stuff, is fine. Just as long as there is context to what is being posted. MR stated as much that the source was sketchy.

That is how I view most things I read on MR and the internet in general, as sketchy. At least until I have reasons to not view it that way.

 

[TiggrToo]

Like I said, the internet should be looked at with a skeptical eye.

Even if people have the credentials, that doesn't automatically make them right. If MR would somehow manage and verify credentials of their members (doubtful), people with credentials are wrong all the time.


This kind of reminds me of a thread that was made in this sub-forum a few weeks ago with a MR member complaining about MR posting rumors from a "sketchy" source.

The MR member was saying that MR should be above posting a rumor from the sketchy source that everyone knew was false, and keep posting stuff from only the well known leakers with good track records.

Turns outs, that sketchy source was 100% right, making that thread a great example of why posting stuff, even sketchy stuff, is fine. Just as long as there is context to what is being posted. MR stated as much that the source was sketchy.

That is how I view most things I read on MR and the internet in general, as sketchy. At least until I have reasons to not view it that way.

Like I say, I’m interested in knowing from the mods what the correct protocol is.

I started this thread because I genuingly would like to know how to handle situations like this. It being Arn’s house, I don’t want to be responsible for leaving muddy footprints on the doormat unless he’s OK with it.

 

[cmaier]

I am not sure what you are expecting forum members to do, post their resume with references? Also, just because someone has actual credentials in a particular field of study doesn't automatically make them right.

If the governments, health authorities, journalists, fact checkers, etc. often make claims that are questionable by others, why would some (relatively) tiny internet forum be any different.

I am not even sure how one would expect MR to somehow monitor and regulate their members' claimed credentials.

A general rule of thumb to use on the forum (and the internet in general) is take anything with a grain of salt. It is good to be skeptical, especially now.

As there are forum rules about being asked to post proof of verifiable facts, it seems to me that someone who, instead of facts, relies on supposed credentials or authority in support of an argument should be subject to a similar rule.

If we are just going to take everything with a grain of salt, why bother with the rule about having to post proof of a fact upon request?

 

[Juicy Box]

As there are forum rules about being asked to post proof of verifiable facts, it seems to me that someone who, instead of facts, relies on supposed credentials or authority in support of an argument should be subject to a similar rule.

If someone is relying on their own credentials or authority in support of an argument, their side should be taken as an opinion.

As I said before, one's credentials do not make them right about something.

If we are just going to take everything with a grain of salt, why bother with the rule about having to post proof of a fact upon request?

Maybe it shouldn't be a rule as well, as even when someone posts proof of a claim, that proof is only as good as the source.

In a world where fact-checkers are sometimes wrong, even corroborating citations should be looked at with skepticism.

 

[cmaier]

If someone is relying on their own credentials or authority in support of an argument, their side should be taken as an opinion.

As I said before, one's credentials do not make them right about something.


Maybe it shouldn't be a rule as well, as even when someone posts proof of a claim, that proof is only as good as the source.

In a world where fact-checkers are sometimes wrong, even corroborating citations should be looked at with skepticism.

“We can’t ever know anything” is certainly one way to look at life.

But it doesn’t answer the OP’s question.

 

[Juicy Box]

“We can’t ever know anything” is certainly one way to look at life.

But it doesn’t answer the OP’s question.

Maybe, maybe not, but I think this will probably be the closest solution to the OP's question:

If someone is relying on their own credentials or authority in support of an argument, their side should be taken as an opinion.

 

[cmaier]

Maybe, maybe not, but I think this will probably be the closest solution to the OP's question:

The OP didn’t seem to think it was responsive.

 

[Lioness~]

My experience is that internet is here for all people to express themselves, regardless.
It’s usually never about "the other person" if you get triggered.
I would ask myself why it bothers you if he makes up a fools paradise. It’s his problem, not yours. Smile.

Make your point whatever that is, and let other’s make their statements. If things are not true regarding other people’s comments they are the only ones to take the consequences for speaking untruth’s.

I am a strong advocate for the power of karma. It will always catch up with whatever we humans do and from where we aim from in our degree of awareness.

Take a more detached stance about other’s people comments, and be more aware about your own intentions and reactions. It’s the only thing you can change and have control over.
Sometimes we do need to get into unpleasant arguments, challenge things, and sometimes we don’t know the reason of it until after.

 

[I7guy]

Seems like the citation rule is still applicable, regardless of a stated user claim about being an authority.

 

[Juicy Box]

Seems like the citation rule is still applicable, regardless of a stated user claim about being an authority.

I think you are right, but if I am understanding it correctly, what the OP is describing is a situation where someone is making a claim, but when asked for citation, that someone replies something like "that claim is based on my experience as a (some profession) for (some amount of years).

So, the person making the claim is basing their claim off of experience. In that case I think the claim would be considered an opinion, which shouldn't be taken as fact.

I am not sure how the Mods or Arn will weigh in, but I doubt MR is going to require people to start posting their credentials when asked as a citation.

Although, I could be wrong...

 

[I7guy]

I think you are right, but if I am understanding it correctly, what the OP is describing is a situation where someone is making a claim, but when asked for citation, that someone replies something like "that claim is based on my experience as a (some profession) for (some amount of years).

So, the person making the claim is basing their claim off of experience. In that case I think the claim would be considered an opinion, which shouldn't be taken as fact.

I am not sure how the Mods or Arn will weigh in, but I doubt MR is going to require people to start posting their credentials when asked as a citation.

Although, I could be wrong...

It’s an opinion because it’s anecdotal, even if true in a smaller context…in a larger context it’s an opinion.

 

[annk]

The point of the citation rule is to ensure that a distinction is made between opinion and fact, not to check users' credentials. The rule works like this in the example given in this thread:

User A: "I'm a lawyer, I should know"
User B: "If you're a lawyer, can you provide a link to relevant case, statutes?"

If the user can't provide a source, or provides sources that don't back up the claim, it's better simply to post "I think you're mistaken/you're wrong, here are multiple sources that show the opposite..." Letting the discussion veer into a debate of the user's credentials will only serve to derail the thread.

Since debate centers around the content and relative reliability of various sources, the fact that the user claims to be a lawyer/doctor/whatever really doesn't matter, though of course it can be annoying if the user's claim of expertise and posts don't match.

 

[bunnspecial]

The point of the citation rule is to ensure that a distinction is made between opinion and fact, not to check users' credentials. The rule works like this in the example given in this thread:

User A: "I'm a lawyer, I should know"
User B: "If you're a lawyer, can you provide a link to relevant case, statutes?"

If the user can't provide a source, or provides sources that don't back up the claim, it's better simply to post "I think you're mistaken/you're wrong, here are multiple sources that show the opposite..." Letting the discussion veer into a debate of the user's credentials will only serve to derail the thread.

Since debate centers around the content and relative reliability of various sources, the fact that the user claims to be a lawyer/doctor/whatever really doesn't matter, though of course it can be annoying if the user's claim of expertise and posts don't match.

Can I tag onto this and ask a bit of a related question?

First of all, I will state that this is an ACTUAL scenario from a thread on MR, hence the level of detail I'm providing although I did not act on it at the time:

1. A poster claims knowledge of some topic because of their credentials after having attended a professional conference

2. The poster gives specific details of that conference, including name of the conference, location, date, and speakers at it, and their position

3. A user investigating that information finds that a. No such conference by that name exists. b. There was no conference in the field in that location on that date or any date around it. c. The speakers stated as being at the conference did not hold the positions or have the qualifications that the post claimed they had

Would asking for details of the conference be appropriate, and if none were forthcoming could this violate the citation rule?

Again, very specific situation, but not one I've simply sat here and fabricated...

 

[TiggrToo]

Can I tag onto this and ask a bit of a related question?

First of all, I will state that this is an ACTUAL scenario from a thread on MR, hence the level of detail I'm providing although I did not act on it at the time:

1. A poster claims knowledge of some topic because of their credentials after having attended a professional conference

2. The poster gives specific details of that conference, including name of the conference, location, date, and speakers at it, and their position

3. A user investigating that information finds that a. No such conference by that name exists. b. There was no conference in the field in that location on that date or any date around it. c. The speakers stated as being at the conference did not hold the positions or have the qualifications that the post claimed they had

Would asking for details of the conference be appropriate, and if none were forthcoming could this violate the citation rule?

Again, very specific situation, but not one I've simply sat here and fabricated...

I will go on record and confirm that yes, that is indeed one such occurance of such situation that I've witnessed that led me to create this thread.

 

[ixxx69]

How can one handle a situation where a user claims they are an authority on a subject being discussed but such claim is questionable by others?

This used to bother me a lot as well. Half the threads in this forum contain objectively bad advice and opinions. It used to pain me to think the person seeking advice or a solution would make a poor decision based on poor advice. I would correct someone, or offer objectively good advice, and some know-nothing would contradict me. I would then get drawn into a protracted argument. I wasted a lot of time.

There are a few special-interest forums that are heavily moderated to remove or call-out misinformation. This isn't one of them.

I rarely give advice anymore, but I'll make an exception here : You can't fix the internet. People are going to give and get bad advice. It's not your problem. They may contradict you. You may feel your reputation is at stake. It isn't. Just move on. You'll be happier for it.

 

[bunnspecial]

I will go on record and confirm that yes, that is indeed one such occurance of such situation that I've witnessed that led me to create this thread.

I suspected it was...

Also, as another sort of hypothetical(but not really a hypothetical), let's say someone claims to hold a certification that doesn't actually exist. Would it be appropriate to not so much ask the person to prove that they hold that certification, but just to more in general show that the what they claim is something that DOES exist?

 

[I7guy]

I suspected it was...

Also, as another sort of hypothetical(but not really a hypothetical), let's say someone claims to hold a certification that doesn't actually exist. Would it be appropriate to not so much ask the person to prove that they hold that certification, but just to more in general show that the what they claim is something that DOES exist?

In my own opinion, debating someone’s certification is probably off topic and if I ran across such posts would report them.

 

[bunnspecial]

In my own opinion, debating someone’s certification is probably off topic and if I ran across such posts would report them.

This question was directed at the moderators/administrators, but I can see situations where it was relevant

"I say that x is true because I hold y certification"...and Y certification doesn't exist

Assuming that's directly related to the discussion, I wouldn't necessarily say "That doesn't exist" but, in a more general sense, would it not be appropriate to say "Can you post a link to what y certification entails?"

Asking for that information would in effect be asking for a citation in my mind...

 

[TiggrToo]

In my own opinion, debating someone’s certification is probably off topic and if I ran across such posts would report them.

So if someone who’s a lifelong woodcutter by trade happens to post “When I used to work as a policeman I found…” - that such a post shouldn’t be called into question?

The poster here has specifically called out their imaginary occupation as a means to claim authority over a subject.

We allow for citations to be requested for other claims, why not this?

This is especially true where said poster creates a totally imaginary job that obviously is fictional and uses that to lend credence to their opinion.

Remember there are people here who will read such posts and put weight onto a post from someone who claims they’re an expert in the field, even when there’s a very high chance that they’re far far from an expert and just a braggart.

 

[Juicy Box]

"I say that x is true because I hold y certification"...and Y certification doesn't exist

Asking for that information would in effect be asking for a citation in my mind...

I'm pretty sure that what you posted is what the OP's argument/complaint is, but I don't think it fits the citation rule.

Just because someone holds a certification (or any other credential) doesn't make any of their posts about the topic in a fact. If anything, it should be treated as an opinion.


I know you were looking for a Mod's perspective, but I think they already answered it here in bold:

The point of the citation rule is to ensure that a distinction is made between opinion and fact, not to check users' credentials. The rule works like this in the example given in this thread:

User A: "I'm a lawyer, I should know"
User B: "If you're a lawyer, can you provide a link to relevant case, statutes?"

If the user can't provide a source, or provides sources that don't back up the claim, it's better simply to post "I think you're mistaken/you're wrong, here are multiple sources that show the opposite..." Letting the discussion veer into a debate of the user's credentials will only serve to derail the thread.

Since debate centers around the content and relative reliability of various sources, the fact that the user claims to be a lawyer/doctor/whatever really doesn't matter, though of course it can be annoying if the user's claim of expertise and posts don't match.

 

[Juicy Box]

So if someone who’s a lifelong woodcutter by trade happens to post “When I used to work as a policeman I found…” - that such a post shouldn’t be called into question?

Not by itself.

People can and do have change in careers.

I think calling out bad posts with counter arguments and citations supporting those counter arguments would probably be the best way to handle the situation.

Or just ignore em.

 

[TiggrToo]

Not by itself.

People can and do have change in careers.

I think calling out bad posts with counter arguments and citations supporting those counter arguments would probably be the best way to handle the situation.

Or just ignore em.

I'm not talking about changing careers. I'm talking about obvious falsehoods.