You got it the wrong way around: If it’s consensus, no one questions it anymore so you don’t need a source. If you start to question commonly hold beliefs, you will have to unlearn the whole field of economics. Do you want that?
Economics is less accurate than astrology because at least if you are an astrologist who gets things wrong you stop getting paid. Sure it is cold reading and Barnum statements but it is still more accurate.
In order to reach a consensus like that, you have to have supporting evidence that it’s true. Otherwise that consensus should absolutely be challenged.
It happens in all kind of scientific fields that things that feel logical and common sense, are taken for granted. I think SciShow made a video about it but I can’t find it right now.
We’re talking about anthropology/history here. People spend their entire careers researching things like this and publishing papers on it.
To make a claim like this requires evidence. Historical records would exist that some person at some point gathered together and published a peer reviewed article on.
If no sources or peer reviewed articles exist on the topic other than a few blog posts, then it’s extremely likely it’s a pile of horse shit.
But talking about anthropologists: here is a quote from David Graeber’s book Bullshit Jobs:
Feudal lords, insofar as they worked at all, were fighters—their lives tended to alternate between dramatic feats of arms and near-total idleness and torpor. Peasants and servants obviously were expected to work more steadily. But even so, their work schedule was nothing remotely as regular or disciplined as the current nine-to-five—the typical medieval serf, male or female, probably worked from dawn to dusk for twenty to thirty days out of any year, but just a few hours a day otherwise, and on feast days, not at all. And feast days were not infrequent.
He is an anthropologist who devoted his whole career debunking such claims and published a book together with a historian who does the same. It’s called “the dawn of everything” by David Graeber and David Wengrow (2021). You should check it out. I could look up more anthropologists to back my claim but I don’t want to spend too much time for people who talk down on me (none of these are block posts, surprised?) and you are yet to come up with all the anthropologists and historians (not economics, they don’t count) who support your claim.
I didn’t make any claim one way or another, I was just saying that any consensus in academia is going to be backed up by some sort of research and evidence.
And anything you inferred as talking down to you was a misinterpretation on your part.
Do you also ask for sources when people contend that Julius Caesar was a real person, or that the world is round? Go to JSTOR and start building your case if you’re so keen to display your ignorance about common knowledge, or do you need a SOURCE to tell you that JSTOR actually exists and isn’t a modern fiction?
Don’t be belligerent and you won’t get the door slammed on you, being upset about tone of a message to the point of it overriding your ability to accept its content is overly emotional and extremely childish.
If it’s consensus then there must be sources somewhere.
You got it the wrong way around: If it’s consensus, no one questions it anymore so you don’t need a source. If you start to question commonly hold beliefs, you will have to unlearn the whole field of economics. Do you want that?
Economics is less accurate than astrology because at least if you are an astrologist who gets things wrong you stop getting paid. Sure it is cold reading and Barnum statements but it is still more accurate.
This entire quote is actually a perfect encapsulation of orthodox economics, said with absolutely no self awareness.
In order to reach a consensus like that, you have to have supporting evidence that it’s true. Otherwise that consensus should absolutely be challenged.
It happens in all kind of scientific fields that things that feel logical and common sense, are taken for granted. I think SciShow made a video about it but I can’t find it right now.
We’re talking about anthropology/history here. People spend their entire careers researching things like this and publishing papers on it.
To make a claim like this requires evidence. Historical records would exist that some person at some point gathered together and published a peer reviewed article on.
If no sources or peer reviewed articles exist on the topic other than a few blog posts, then it’s extremely likely it’s a pile of horse shit.
I don’t think you got my point at all. My point is that even natural science, which is “hard science” and much easier falsifiable, this also happens. I found the video if you’re interested (It’s by Be Smart, I was wrong about the channel).
There is also a video about the history of work that is more on topic. If you don’t want to watch the video, you can just read the sources in the description.
But talking about anthropologists: here is a quote from David Graeber’s book Bullshit Jobs:
He is an anthropologist who devoted his whole career debunking such claims and published a book together with a historian who does the same. It’s called “the dawn of everything” by David Graeber and David Wengrow (2021). You should check it out. I could look up more anthropologists to back my claim but I don’t want to spend too much time for people who talk down on me (none of these are block posts, surprised?) and you are yet to come up with all the anthropologists and historians (not economics, they don’t count) who support your claim.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
I found the video if you’re interested (It’s by Be Smart, I was wrong about the channel)
There is also a video about the history of work that is more on topic
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Thank you for finding a source.
I didn’t make any claim one way or another, I was just saying that any consensus in academia is going to be backed up by some sort of research and evidence.
And anything you inferred as talking down to you was a misinterpretation on your part.
Do you also ask for sources when people contend that Julius Caesar was a real person, or that the world is round? Go to JSTOR and start building your case if you’re so keen to display your ignorance about common knowledge, or do you need a SOURCE to tell you that JSTOR actually exists and isn’t a modern fiction?
You could turn down your douchebag levels quite a lot and still make a point.
It’ll make you look much less like an asshole when you’re wrong, which you are.
Don’t be belligerent and you won’t get the door slammed on you, being upset about tone of a message to the point of it overriding your ability to accept its content is overly emotional and extremely childish.
UHHH SOURCE!!! SOURCE???
I’m not the person asking for a source, but good job proving that you’re an asshole.
We have coins with his face on it.