Just Google It

[Jaybird0521]

When discussing the paranormal, pseudoscience, or other forms of woo, I naturally ask for people's sources; I ask for hard, credible evidence.

On multiple occasions I get variations of this response: "Just Google it!"

Or "Look it up yourself" or "Do your own research."

Has anyone else run into this? How would you respond to this?

The only thing I've come up with, so far, is "'Just Google it,' is what people say when they can't support their claim or position."

 

[abaddon]

I googled it. Now what?

 

[fagin]

It's up to them to substantiate their claims. End of.

 

[Brian-M]

How would you respond to this?

I'd respond by saying that Googling it showed it to be nothing but nonsense, and I'd supply them with a (cherry-picked) link from Google to support that the claim is complete nonsense.

Hopefully responses like that will tend to break them out of the habit of telling people to just Google it.

 

[Donn]

"..just google it."
"Okay, hold a moment." Touch your head with your pinky. Hum a little.
"Yes, I see." Look at claimant, "Done, I just googled it."
"How?" Asks a dumbfounded claimant.
"Oh, just google it."

 

[Dinwar]

When discussing the paranormal, pseudoscience, or other forms of woo, I naturally ask for people's sources; I ask for hard, credible evidence.

On multiple occasions I get variations of this response: "Just Google it!"

Or "Look it up yourself" or "Do your own research."

Has anyone else run into this? How would you respond to this?

The only thing I've come up with, so far, is "'Just Google it,' is what people say when they can't support their claim or position."

I've come across it professionally, on both sides of the issue. The thing is, uninformed opinions are worthless. You may as well be saying random words for all the value you're adding to a conversation. It's perfectly reasonable to expect people coming into a conversation to be familiar with the terminology and main concepts involved, and it's incumbant upon the participants to know that before entering into the conversation (or be VERY clear that they are there to get informed).

Here's another way to look at it: if you're unwilling to put thirty seconds into this topic, why should I spent ten minutes composing a post for you?

 

[ebardos]

The last time this happened, I was in an online discussion regarding evidence of UFOs, credible witnesses to such, etc. I had requested the usual links to scientific journals, peer reviews and so forth. I was told that it was not her job to do my research for me and that it was available if I looked.

She seemed to be truly offended when I suggested that such evidence did not exist and she broke off the conversation. I have the feeling many of us fall into one camp or the other. For believers, any evidence is proof and lack of evidence can be explained away by circumstance such as government cover-up or alien technological superiority. Skeptics often refute any evidence presented, claiming hoax or natural phenomena mistaken for supernatural.

Basically I agree. Being told by someone to do your own research is tantamount to being told they have none to present.

 

[jasonpatterson]

When discussing the paranormal, pseudoscience, or other forms of woo, I naturally ask for people's sources; I ask for hard, credible evidence.

{snip}

The only thing I've come up with, so far, is "'Just Google it,' is what people say when they can't support their claim or position."

I guess it depends on how often you are doing this, how you do it, what information you're demanding sources for, with whom you do it, and in what setting.

If you're arguing with someone in a reasonably rigorous sort of way, then sure, politely asking for sources when something seems far-fetched is perfectly reasonable. In an online forum of this type it's pretty much the norm if you're going to make any sort of unusual claim.

If you're demanding sources for trivial things, asking for sources constantly, doing so rudely, or trying to turn BS sessions into debates, then I can totally understand someone telling you to look it up for yourself. Additionally, your perception of the frequency, importance, and politeness of your requests may not match up particularly well with the perception of whoever it is you're talking with. The second, far more common reason I've heard someone tell another person to "Just Google it" in this situation is because the questioner is being obnoxious or is trying to shut down the conversation.

In a perfect world, perhaps we would all be able to source virtually everything we said and be able to request other people's sources regarding virtually anything, but in reality a lot of that stuff just goes by the wayside in exchange for being able to actually communicate with one another in a reasonable period of time.

 

[Pixel42]

"I have googled it, I've looked at the evidence and it does not stand up to even a superficial examination. If you have found evidence that does stand up you need to point me to it."

 

[JoeMorgue]

It depends on context.

In the abstract if you are making a claim you need to be able to put at least a token effort into backing it up.

But on the other hand the "Intentionally Obtuse" act is a favorite of Woo Slingers and if make passing mention of the Earth being round, water being wet, or fire being hot into my conversation and as a pathetic little childish stalling tactic some lunk head asks for proof, I'm not going to waste my time tracking it down for them.

Long story short they are simply some things you shouldn't have to prove to people at this point in our species's intellectual development.

 

[marplots]

The equivalent to "just google it" in this forum is, "read these papers" followed by 16 links to subscription-only journal articles.

"You know, if I wanted to go to graduate school, I'd have applied for a loan..."

 

[JoeMorgue]

That and another Woo Slinger trademark is the total inability to actually describe in your own words what it is you seem to be promoting.

Constant appeals to "Just read this!" or worse "Just watch this hour long badly made Youtube video!" trigger my warning bells.

 

[marplots]

That and another Woo Slinger trademark is the total inability to actually describe in your own words what it is you seem to be promoting.

Constant appeals to "Just read this!" or worse "Just watch this hour long badly made Youtube video!" trigger my warning bells.

Mine too. And first chance I get, I'm gonna put together an extended play video on the topic. But I have to finish my website first, the one with all the diagrams I've done and my impenetrable screeds. Oh, and my 132 page pdf manifesto.

Don't worry though. I'll be pasting it all here soon enough.

 

[dlorde]

... I'll be pasting it all here soon enough.

Don't bother, I'll google it

 

[Ed Glosser]

When discussing the paranormal, pseudoscience, or other forms of woo, I naturally ask for people's sources; I ask for hard, credible evidence.

On multiple occasions I get variations of this response: "Just Google it!"

Or "Look it up yourself" or "Do your own research."

Has anyone else run into this? How would you respond to this?

The only thing I've come up with, so far, is "'Just Google it,' is what people say when they can't support their claim or position."

There's a webpage by Dean Radin where he lists various studies of the kind you're refering to, in response to skeptics who ask where the evidence is. I'm not allowed to post a link, but maybe you could just Qwant it.

 

[Agatha]

Mine too. And first chance I get, I'm gonna put together an extended play video on the topic. But I have to finish my website first, the one with all the diagrams I've done and my impenetrable screeds. Oh, and my 132 page pdf manifesto.

Don't worry though. I'll be pasting it all here soon enough.

I refuse to read it unless there are lots of different colours and fonts, and maybe some bolding and italics. And will you put the extra-really true things in ALLCAPS?

 

[Pixel42]

There's a webpage by Dean Radin where he lists various studies of the kind you're refering to, in response to skeptics who ask where the evidence is. I'm not allowed to post a link, but maybe you could just Qwant it.

Here's a better link: http://www.skepdic.com/essays/radin.html

 

[Ed Glosser]

Here's a better link: http://www.skepdic.com/essays/radin.html

Why was that a better link when the issue was believers telling skeptics to Google things rather than directing them to what they consider to be evidence?

 

[Ladewig]

I'd reply "I have found that different people have vastly different definitions of 'Googling something.' I have to ask what yours is. To some people, Googling means looking only at the hits you like - to other people, Googling means looking at the first hit and nothing else - to other people Googling means looking at every hit as being equally credible - to people who like Argument-by-YouTube, Googling means looking only at video results."

I'd use that approach because it addresses the fundamental issue in all skeptic-believer arguments: what counts as evidence.

...........

Depending on how much rapport I had with the person, I instead respond, "I could Google '9/11 was an inside job' and get hundreds of thousands of hits. But that doesn't mean that any of them are accurate or useful in any way. "

 

[Ladewig]

I refuse to read it unless there are lots of different colours and fonts, and maybe some bolding and italics. And will you put the extra-really true things in ALLCAPS?

I guess I am jaded. I won't look at a page unless there is flashing or scrolling text. Now, THAT'S evidence.