citation needed

This is very confusing. This seems to be saying that a person can make up any story they want and share it as an anecdote and it cannot be questioned.  And since it cannot be questioned, it must implicitly be accepted as though it were a type of “truth“.  At the same time, you’re saying that it’s forbidden to state that something is “the truth”.  
This seems like a contradiction; how can you have it both ways?  

It seems like it is on the one hand defending  a person in speaking “their truth”, while at the same time saying it is forbidden for a person to speak “their truth”.

Mike Philips wrote:This is very confusing. This seems to be saying that a person can make up any story they want and share it as an anecdote and it cannot be questioned.

Up at the top, Paul wrote that it's fair to respond with "Interesting perspective - any web pages that you really like on that topic?" Is that questioning them or do you mean something specific and different?

You can also always describe your own experiences, even if they seem to conflict with someone else's -- in general you just have to leave room for the issue being bigger than whatever one aspect you're seeing.

This is very confusing. This seems to be saying that a person can make up any story they want and share it as an anecdote and it cannot be questioned.

So if I say "I think the sky is green" you feel the good and right and decent thing to do is to say "citation needed"?

Or, perhaps you want to try an example on me?  What is a statement where I would feel that saying "citation needed" is the good and right and decent thing?

@Mike Philips: Reading the thread, my understanding is that the objection to "citation needed" is about the tone and not the request. It's fine to ask people to back up their reasoning, but simply saying "citation needed" is a terse/snide/rude/cold way to do it. We certainly want to cooperatively reach or uncover the truth regarding matters of fact, but "citation needed" does not foster the spirit of camaraderie and friendliness (or at least neighborliness) that is being cultivated here, and instead takes us away from it.

@Paul Wheaton: Is my understanding basically correct, or have I risked further confusing Mike?

Ned Harr wrote:@Paul Wheaton: Is my understanding basically correct, or have I risked further confusing Mike?

I think you are quite close.

I wish to encourage people to share their position.  

The phrase "citation needed" discourages people from sharing their position.  

Further, a person can have a position without reference to any citation.  

Mike Philips wrote:This is very confusing. This seems to be saying that a person can make up any story they want and share it as an anecdote and it cannot be questioned.  And since it cannot be questioned, it must implicitly be accepted as though it were a type of “truth“.

We can question anything we see here eight ways 'till Sunday and until the end of time if we wish. What we cannot do is cross examine someone in an attempt to prove them wrong. Every time in life someone tells us something, it is ultimately up to us to decide whether it is true or not. Whether someone says it is their opinion or the truth ultimately has no bearing over whether what they said is true. Sadly, many think that boldly presenting their opinion or experience as truth makes it so, and conversely some believe that by asking questions about someone else's opinion or experience which cannot be answered disproves it. In the end, it is far more amicable just to dispense with "truth."

You mention people having "their truth." If everyone has their own truth, then it would be not nice for one person to try to force their truth on others, or to try to disprove another person's truth.

Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.

You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field?

A college degree? In that field?

Then your arguments are invalid.

No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

Nope, still haven't.

I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.

People like this are a dime a dozen on the internet. After you talk to one of them for awhile, you realize that you are completely wasting your time. The policy here at Permies short circuits that strategy so that we can continue talking about our observations and innovations.

i carried some of this conversation to here

https://permies.com/t/68159/position-truth#1933965