That why it's important for it to not just be a "paper" but an actual source. Then you can check who wrote it, who published it, and what the specific study was. As in, read the published study they cited and you'll see what the parameters were and how they got to the conclusion purported. It's not just "I found that somebody on the internet somewhere said x, here's a link to the Twitter post." Be skeptical and call out shitty sources, but ignoring the entire concept of backing up a claim with evidence is pretty silly. In the current era of plaguing disinformation and misinformation, it's important to be well-versed in thinking critically about what we are told.

[+] doublejay1999@lemmy.world -8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Mate, how are you trying to find a difference between citing a paper and citing a source ? The paper IS the source. The paper IS the study.

I genuinely don’t know what you’re trying to do here.

The entire point is that is trivial to quote papers, or sources, if you prefer.

Ergo, someone hooting about citing two sources (without mentioning them, by the way) is only a zinger if you are naive to social media arguments.

I really don’t know what’s so hard about it.

[–] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If you think you can just have chat gpt write you a paper that you can use as a source, then you don't understand what a source is. Drawing a false equivalency either indicates that you don't know how to differentiate between valid sources and invalid sources or that you're intentionally attempting to fracture public faith in the entire concept of fact-checking in order to further the spread of disinformation for objectively questionable motives. I don't have a tin foil hat on right now, so I'll just assume that you're uninformed and could benefit from reading a book on the subject or taking a class on it.

It's easier to dismiss all evidence and just believe whatever feels right, but the common people will have what little money and power they have sucked away from them if lies are permitted to influence who to give their money and power to. There is a real benefit to controlling narrative and swaying public opinion, so the people being equipped to identify weaponized disinformation is a valuable defense for basic democratic function and individual prosperity.

That's why I feel the need to respond to what you're saying. At best, you're accidentally sowing distrust in an essential skill set in the modern information age; at worst, you're intentionally attacking the working class at the behest of the ruling/owning class. Again, no tin foil hat, so I think you just didn't understand what the logical conclusion of what you were saying was.