What can we do when something is too vast to provide representative examples for?

I feel like often people ask me “Oh yea? Name some examples.” and the burden is on me to prove something by providing representative examples. But often it’s so overwhelming how many examples there are for something that I feel obligated then to either list everything, or try extra hard to find good examples, and even then I feel like I could be misrepresenting the case by not providing enough examples. Basically I feel like I would have to give many, many examples, or none at all, otherwise anything in the middle could be non-representative of the true trend.

Ironically, now you will want me to give examples of situations that I’m talking about. But for this I will provide 2 examples and rest on good faith that you will believe me (given the context of this post) that this happens much more often than I care to provide examples for.

So one example is when you are attempting to prove to someone that a certain thing is scientifically proven or is agreed upon as scientific consensus. You can look to the generally agreed hierarchy of evidence and provide what it considers to be high-quality evidence, such as meta analyses and systematic reviews, but even then there can be disagreement between specific reports, and there can be outliers that disagree with the overall most common trends or findings. So the only way to really prove something is to provide many, many different instances of scientific evidence to the point where the other person would be unable to find the same level or amount of evidence to the contrary by virtue of the fact that it doesn’t exist to the same overwhelming degree, essentially proving the scientific fact. But again, this takes either an enormous amount of high quality evidence from various different sources, or nothing at all and simply an assertion that something is in fact scientifically proven or agreed upon as scientific consensus, because anything else in the middle could misrepresent the case and make it seem less substantiated than it actually is. It’s either “all or nothing”.

And now I’ll provide a specific anecdote about someone who argued that there are no decent stories with a female main protagonist. I am so sure and believe it to be so obvious that there is an extensive history of great female main protagonists and female-driven stories, in all forms of storytelling, that I found this an overwhelming task to attempt to prove when the person asked for specific examples. How can I make the case of the wealth of good stories with female main characters without providing an exhaustive (or highly numerous) list? Even if I pick a few great examples, the person can always make the objection that “Those are an exception, and they don’t represent the overall trend.” and I risk misrepresenting that trend if the examples chosen aren’t the best ones available, too. How can you possibly prove something like that without a very long and well-thought out and extensively researched list? Again, it seems like it’s either attempt such a daunting task, or don’t engage with the request for examples at all and just assert the claim that there are many examples, without specifying any to avoid the risk of taking on the burden of proving it and possibly misrepresenting the trend.

I hope this made any sense at all.

bloom_of_rakes, (edited )

Give it a name. Describe it as “ineffable” or “incomprehensibly vast”. Easy.

We talk about stuff that we don’t understand all the time. We don’t even need to have a reason.

BigMikeInAustin,

“Well, since you are over 20 years old and are still unaware of any examples, you obviously cannot comprehend the examples that most of the adult society already knows. I’ll let you know when I find a toddler’s coloring book about this.”

Everythingispenguins,

Okay I just had this happen to me. Someone just commented “citation needed” to something I said. Instead of engaging them on this comment I merely replied. Asking them if there was anything meaningful they wish to add. It worked wonders, no reply and they were hit with some nice down voting.

Maalus,

Dowvotes don’t mean shit. They probably never replied since they have better things to do, than to argue with someone who goes “I need to find your comment meaningful, don’t post if I don’t”

JackLSauce,

More people always read the top-level comment

Certainly cite sources when relevant but never argue with a reply

Yots92,

“It is vast, easy to reach, do it yourself if you care”

SeahorseTreble,

I like that.

scarabic, (edited )

I think you’re talking to some people who, in bad faith, are demanding “proof” when they need to learn how to acknowledge “evidence.” Someone with a fixed attitude will keep moving goalposts and cherry picking outliers until the cows come home, and you need to be able to say: your bias is overwhelming in the gymnastics you perform to avoid the clear evidence. The process of science most often doesn’t produce black and white results. Anti-vaxxers are gonna anti-vax and you can’t “persuade” them.

That said, if you can’t provide 7-8 stories with female protagonists, which are very popular, you’re not even trying. His Dark Materials. Moana. The Fault in Our Stars. The Fablehaven series. Frozen. Labyrinth. Heathers. The Force Awakens. Silo. Mulan. Legend of Korra and the Kyoshi novels. The Sarah Connor Chronicles. 16 Candles. Star Trek Voyager. Anne of Green Gables. Watchmen (2019 series). Jane Eyre. Pippi Longstocking. Captain Marvel. Aliens. Amelie. Arrival. Gravity. Little House on the Prairie. Game of Thrones. Coraline. You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret.

If you’re really talking to someone who says “there are no stories with…” then here’s enough to easily force them to change their position to “there are far less stories with…” and at that point they would in fact be correct.

ghostdoggtv,

When it comes to arguments about science most people don’t understand how science works. Stop thinking you have to conduct a PhD defense for shitty trolls. In your other example you won the argument and fell for a shifting of goalposts.

Addition1291,

You can lead someone to knowledge but you can’t make em think.

Everythingispenguins,

Can you hit them with the book?

Dagwood222,

I’ll join the chorus.

If something is scientifically proven, just tell them to read the books.

If someone says there are no strong female protagonists, just name three and walk away.

Don’t engage with negative people

morrowind,
@morrowind@lemmy.ml avatar

Naming three is the issue

Nibodhika,

Games: Tomb raider, Life is strange, Control

Movies: Taking lives, Bone collector, Silence of the lambs

Movies (just because the first three that I thought were all the same genre): Carrie, Alien, Arrival

Movie franchises: Hunger games, Twilight, Star wars episode 7-9

Tv shows: Law and order SVU, Bones, Sabrina

Books: Monstrous Regiment, Alice in wonderland, The handmaid’s tale

Comics: Coraline, Wonder woman, Supergirl

These are just the first 3 of every category I thought of.

Cryophilia,

The point is that you shouldn’t have to put in the effort to name anything at all. They’re trolling you. They know female protagonists exist. They’re just trolling.

ChonkyOwlbear,

Most of the time, these people are not arguing in good faith. It’s called sealioning.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Dagwood222,

It says a lot that I’ve been following politics for years, and I’m only having to learn terms like this and ‘Gish Gallop’ now.

Cryophilia,

Reverse Cargo Cult will blow your mind.

Dagwood222,

What would be your examples? I kind of get the idea, but I am not quite sure

Thanks

Cryophilia,

It’s a kind of post-truth argument to apathy. The Soviet Union was famous for it.

hanshowe.org/…/trump-and-the-reverse-cargo-cult/

1980s Soviets knew that their government was lying to them about the strength and power of their society, the Communist Party couldn’t hide all of the dysfunctions people saw on a daily basis. This didn’t stop the Soviet leadership from lying. Instead, they just accused the West of being equally deceptive. “Sure, things might be bad here, but they are just as bad in America, and in America people are actually foolish enough to believe in the lie! Not like you, clever people. You get it. You know it is a lie.”

It’s very difficult to combat because if someone is convinced that everything is a lie, then it’s really impossible to un-convince term.

It ties in to "both sides"erism a lot. You point out a horrible thing Trump does, they respond with, yeah, politicians are shit, you say no one particular party and its orange emperor are shit, they say Democrats are just as bad and you’re a sucker for believing otherwise.

Dagwood222,

Thanks.

Isn’t it wonderful to live in an age where there are so many, many terms for the different types of lies?

pugsnroses77,

it seems like you are trying to have genuine debates with people who just want to argue. what happens on the flipside? do people provide you with evidence/examples when you ask? does it change your mind?

shani66,

You are asking how to argue with someone arguing in bad faith. You don’t. You ignore them, or if you think you are pretty good with words you could belittle them for the people watching, but you won’t convince them.

Rhynoplaz,

You are definitely over-thinking this.

Your hearts in the right place, but this is the Internet, you’re not going to convince anyone of anything. You can have all the best examples, but people are just going to waste your time asking for more, or shooting down your examples with bullshit. There are no right answers, because everyone’s looking to hear what they want and are eager to let you know when they disagree.

Flax_vert,

That’s what debating atheists is like in a nutshell

Rhynoplaz,

That’s funny, I had the opposite in mind while writing it.

Aleric, (edited )

LOL. Why would you care to debate atheists? Assuming you follow an Abrahamic religion, you have your bipolar sky wizard with his bizarre, inconsistent mythos, while we have standards of evidence for what we believe.

While we do poke fun at the religious, most of us ultimately don’t care what you believe. We do care about the batshit actions taken by the ostensibly religious to enforce their personal beliefs on others, presented in the guise of religion. If the latter isn’t you, we’re typically not concerned. So why do you care?

Flax_vert,

Because I care about you. I care about your souls.

Cryophilia,

Fuck my soul, tell your psychopathic God I said to fuck off. He doesn’t deserve my soul. Better to burn for eternity than kneel before that monster.

Flax_vert,

Your choice!

SpacetimeMachine,

Well I can tell you that you’re debating on vain then. You’re never gonna convince an atheist until you have solid evidence of a higher power. And trust me, you don’t.

Flax_vert,

What sort of evidence would convince you?

Maalus, (edited )

Complete and irrefutable evidence that doesn’t require “faith” to prove it. No “look at the beauty of this world!” type of bullshit, actual miracles being performed, actual omniscient powers, abilty to create, etc.

Flax_vert,

These are documented in the New Testament.

Maalus,

Yeah, no. I said proof. Not “my magical book says so”.

Flax_vert, (edited )

Can you show me proof that St Patrick existed?

Maalus, (edited )

Stop changing the subject. I told you exactly what I expect to “convince me”. There isn’t any proof.

Flax_vert,

There isn’t any proof for St Patrick?

Maalus,

We aren’t talking about him, I don’t give two shits about him. Provide irrefutable proof that god exists or go away.

Flax_vert,

I did. If you discount the New Testament as a “magical book” then you literally have to throw away several other historical figures who we have no evidence of other than in writing

Maalus,

No, you didn’t and no, I don’t have to. I can discard your magical book like I can any other religious book in existence.

Also, have you gone on a pilgrimage to Mecca already? Why not? After all, it says in a book that you need to.

Provide actual evidence.

Flax_vert,

Which book says I need to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca?

Maalus,

The Quran does. You obviously know that, so by now I am assuming you are just a crappy troll.

Flax_vert,

I was making sure so we’re on the same page. Let’s compare the Bible and the Qur’an, shall we?

The Bible: A compilation of poetry, stories, eyewitness accounts, songs, wisdom, letters and fulfilled prophecies written across several thousand years.

The Qur’an: A single book authored by an Arab warlord claiming to be receiving direct revelation from god, after being visited by an angel. Also claims that the Bible is a previous revelation sent, and this is the addition of it (Qur’an 5:47). Contradicts the entire message of the Bible which says that even if an angel appears in contradiction of it, they are cursed (Galatians 1:8)

They aren’t comparable.

Maalus,

You call their magic book bad, I call your magic book bad. I want proof. Not extended strawmanning. You asked what I need. I said proof. You are unable to provide proof past “my magic book says so”.

Flax_vert,

I’m not unable to provide proof. It depends what you’re specifically looking proof of and your standard of proof. For Jesus all we could possibly have for Him is historical records. But I know you’ll dismiss them as “not being proof”. What proof do you want?

Maalus,

I want proof that god exists. I stated this multiple time. Not “a cult leader in Judea called Jesus was executed”.

Flax_vert,

How could an infinite concept like the Mandelbrot set exist in a finite universe?

Maalus,

Simple, it doesn’t exist. Again, I ask you for proof. I’ll not be talking to you if you keep changing the subject. You wanted to know what would convince people, I gave you exactly what you asked for, and now you are moving goalposts. If you can’t provide concrete solid proof that god exists, of miracles, etc, then what are we even talking about here - you are asking people for faith and nothing more. Which is exactly what the topic of the conversation is - you can’t convince people with bullshit. You don’t have anything to back up your claims.

Flax_vert,

It’s not that I’m moving the goalposts, atheists moved the goalposts to impossibility. If the universe is finite and there’s nothing infinite beyond, infinite concepts cannot exist. Neither can objective morality. It’s like looking at a cake and asking for evidence that somebody baked it.

Fal,
@Fal@yiffit.net avatar

If the universe is finite and there’s nothing infinite beyond, infinite concepts cannot exist.

But how are mirrors real if your eyes don’t exist?

See. I can post nonsense too

Maalus,

Ah yes, objective morality and the ‘maker argument’ which can be summed up to “if I go out in the woods, step on shit, look around, no animals that I can see, god must have shat himself”. That’s the thing - you can’t prove god exists. You filled in the gap with a mythology and think it’s the only explanation for life to exist. So you cannot bring proof. So you cannot convince an atheist that god exists because you yourself don’t even know that.

Flax_vert,

So basically your method is “Disregard all evidence of God as being something else”. Seems rational.

Maalus,

You have no evidence.

Flax_vert,

I do, it just doesn’t meet your ridiculous standard

Maalus,

Ah yes my ridiculous standard of “it needs to be true”. You have nothing. Otherwise it wouldn’t be religion and faith, it would be common sense. You use parlor tricks to confuse people who don’t know better. But when someone knows all of your tricks and calls them out one by one, you throw a hissy fit.

maryjayjay,

If I told you that dogs exist and you didn’t believe me, what kind of evidence would you want to see?

Flax_vert,

But that’s a created thing, not a higher being.

twack,

The whole existence of an abrahamic God is self defeating at its basic premise.

If God is all knowing, all good, and all powerful, then he either designed all of this, including Satan, as some fucked up experiment, or he is not perfect and he messed up somewhere.

There are no other options.

Aleric, (edited )

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don’t even know if I have a soul. I’ll probably find out in the next thirty years.

I worry about the capacity for the religious to engage in active critical thinking, something that is necessary for a thriving, functional society but needs to be -at least temporarily- suspended to be religious, but I’m generally not going to debate theists over that point because it’s disrespectful of their beliefs. It’s also completely fruitless and frustrating to engage in debates with someone whose arguments aren’t grounded in observable, testable phenomena. They’ll always “win” because they can make up whatever they want.

Anyhow, we largely leave you alone, please leave us alone too. We’d appreciate it. With that being said, you have my encouragement to go hard, Galilee guns blazing, on any atheists who give you shit for being a theist.

owen,

You simply can’t convince people who are willfully ignorant. I’m sorry you wrote all that for such a lame response but it’s the fact of the matter. Their minds might change slowly over the years but they’ll never switch on a dime.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
  • ngwrru68w68
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • InstantRegret
  • GTA5RPClips
  • Youngstown
  • everett
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • osvaldo12
  • mdbf
  • kavyap
  • cubers
  • JUstTest
  • modclub
  • normalnudes
  • tester
  • khanakhh
  • Durango
  • ethstaker
  • tacticalgear
  • Leos
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • cisconetworking
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines