when did scientific discussion become a troll off?

[shrub231]

as of late i have noticed that a great many people don't seem to know what is ment by scientific discussion. as far as my understanding goes, scientific disscussion is to be undertake with an open mind, meaning that nothing is absolute, and all ideas are theory based, not factual. as a fact is defined as being indesputable, and not many scientific theories(evolution included) have been elevated to such a position.

but i'm rambling, tell me escapist why do fvery few partake in discussion anymore

edit: well thanks for all your impute gives me some food for thought, mostly just wanted to see how long it took for this thread to plummet into a flame war.
thanks for your participation. also for those of you wondering , i did in fact take college courses on science and the best discussion about it was in my philosophy class so that about sums it up gg

 

[Grospoliner]

Because such people do not want to debate, discuss, or otherwise engage in discourse. It would seem that they prefer to match egos for some sort of perceived honor or prestige, with fact be damned.

 

[Erana]

This is the internet. People can get away with being ignorant and incredibly rude, so they do so even more than in reality.

Sadly, you are simply asking too much of the average internet user.
And even when you find someone normally quite open-minded, you might stumble on the one topic that they simply will not budge on, resulting in a similarly close-minded scenario.

Getting a really good discussion is quite rare in general.
If you're still a kid, get good grades and try to get into a good school that has the right people for you. You'll have a much better chance of finding the kind of crowd you'd like to discuss various matters with.

 

[the spud]

I assume that you are talking of the high number of "your thoughts on religion" threads that have been floating around as of late. I guess it is just one of those things that people will defend to the death, I don't know.

This is the internet. People can get away with being ignorant and incredibly rude, so they do so even more than in reality.

Sadly, you are simply asking too much of the average internet user.

Or this.

 

[zarguhl]

When science became political rather than scientific.

Because of course, we're all going to die from SARS, Swine Flu, Global Warming, Climate Change, A New Ice Age and the y2k bug RIGHT NOW ALL AT ONCE!!!!

 

[TheRocketeer]

It always has been. Always. Since the beginning of history. Period.

If you are blaming a particular group or movement for it, you are a participant.

 

[chaosyoshimage]

Like most things, once scientific discussion hit the internet it went to hell...

 

[Rednog]

as a fact is defined as being indesputable, and not many scientific theories(evolution included) have been elevated to such a position.

but i'm rambling, tell me escapist why do fvery few partake in discussion anymore

Uhh, the word "theory" in the scientific world holds a much much greater strength than in day to day use. I mean if you don't think scientific theories hold weight in fact then feel free to test out the theory of gravity by walking off a skyscraper. I say that it is just a theory and you might just keep continuing to walk across the sky and not fall, my statement isn't indisputable is it? I mean after all gravity is just a scientific theory.

Seriously though, the throwing in evolution as just a theory and not proven make me wonder if you have some hidden agenda. Sorry to break the bad news, but evolution is a fact, it has been proven.
A scientific theory is going to be found one day to be completely incorrect or wrong, it can be amended to fit a new set of data, but never nullified. There suddenly won't be a day where scientists go "Our bad, evolution actually doesn't happen." Why? Because they have evidence that it does indeed happen!

TLDR; Scientific Theory =/= something scientists made up on a flight of fancy. Scientific Theory is based on facts.

 

[siffty]

When you became aware the your tung is in your mouth and that you are manually blinking ........Phycoligy!!!

 

[Torrasque]

I assume that you are talking of the high number of "your thoughts on religion" threads that have been floating around as of late. I guess it is just one of those things that people will defend to the death, I don't know.

This is the internet. People can get away with being ignorant and incredibly rude, so they do so even more than in reality.

Sadly, you are simply asking too much of the average internet user.

Or this.

Pretty much =|
I get into the occasional conversation where it doesn't degrade into "derp, ima troll the fuck out of this thread and make everyone rage so they forget what they're talking about" or "I have no idea what I am talking about, so I am going to pretend that I do, so everyone gets off topic, and the thread is derailed", and they're really fun. Sadly, they are far too few these days.

Don't really get trolling here on Escapist, but "I have no idea" posts happen all the fucking time.

 

[Pat8u]

I assume that you are talking of the high number of "your thoughts on religion" threads that have been floating around as of late. I guess it is just one of those things that people will defend to the death, I don't know.

This is the internet. People can get away with being ignorant and incredibly rude, so they do so even more than in reality.

Sadly, you are simply asking too much of the average internet user.

Or this.

Pretty much =|
I get into the occasional conversation where it doesn't degrade into "derp, ima troll the fuck out of this thread and make everyone rage so they forget what they're talking about" or "I have no idea what I am talking about, so I am going to pretend that I do, so everyone gets off topic, and the thread is derailed", and they're really fun. Sadly, they are far too few these days.

Don't really get trolling here on Escapist, but "I have no idea" posts happen all the fucking time.

couldn't agree more

speaking of science my science teacher said something very interesting today but Im not gonna post it cause Im gonna get flamed

ot Yea I agree wwith the guy I quoted sometimes there are good threads on science sometimes there arent but I don't encounter trolling much here easy

 

[thiosk]

As a scientist, I can assure you that most of my colleagues do not in fact talk about things in the fanciful way you describe. A scientific discussion usually involves one or more of the following:

-I hate my adviser/students/peer reviewers/funding agency/department head
-My adviser/students/peer reviewers/funding agency/department head doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.
-Most of my/your work was already done in the 1970s. Better, too.
-Do you think we could convince someone to fund work to do X? I mean, we really want to do Y, but no ones going to fund that, so lets get X funded and do Y.
-Hey, do you think there are going to be drinks after the seminar? What about the physics one?
-Hey, who the hell took my pipette?
-Could you please stop printing out XKCD comics on the printer and then plastering them all over my desk?

 

[tobi the good boy]

Buddy, your idea of scientific discussion has never existed. Sorry, people have been trolling since the dawn of time.

BTW if anyone can prove god exists I'll give them my leg

My Piano ... and my wife.

OT: Trolls have been here since the internet began you can't really stop them and scientific discussion still occurs, just not on gaming website. they occur on websites related to the scientific topics. check them out.

 

[Iron Mal]

as of late i have noticed that a great many people don't seem to know what is ment by scientific discussion.

I would define scientific discussion as two or more individuals or groups discussing their opinions regarding a topicin relation to scientific theory, methodology, experiments or any other subject related to the field of science.

I see that quite a lot around here so I'm curious as to how you would concisely define scientific discussion?

as far as my understanding goes, scientific disscussion is to be undertake with an open mind, meaning that nothing is absolute, and all ideas are theory based, not factual.

Speak of the devil, it would be an idyllic wonder if all things could be a matter of just being open minded and nothing being absolute but, frankly, science doesn't work that way.

Scientific theories (thoery means something completely different when used in the realm of science) are very often based on observation, evidence, analysis and research (for a hypothesis to be taken seriously and accepted as scientific theory it needs to adhere to the scientific method).

In science some things are absolute, we know that gravity exists, that the Earth rotates around the Sun, that disease is caused by harmful micro-organisms and that electricity require a complete, unbroken circuit to power all modern electronics.

These are things that are not up for debate (it would be extremely difficult to try and find flaws in those statements) and yet all would be correctly referred to as scientific theories.

as a fact is defined as being indesputable, and not many scientific theories(evolution included) have been elevated to such a position.

Evolution has been elevated into such a position, just because we lack certain details and smooth over certain innacuracies by updating the theory doesn't mean the entire thought process behind it is wrong. There is plenty of evidence from various fields of science that support the theory of Evolution (you're mixing up the word 'theory' here with 'hypothesis', that's the one that means it hasn't been widely accepted).

but i'm rambling, tell me escapist why do fvery few partake in discussion anymore

I'd say quite a few people do take part in these discussions, lots of people on here and elsewhere have an opinion on matter of scientific inquiry so I'm not sure what you're basing this hypothesis on (I'm trying to get a point across here).

 

[khantron]

as of late i have noticed that a great many people don't seem to know what is ment by scientific discussion. as far as my understanding goes, scientific disscussion is to be undertake with an open mind, meaning that nothing is absolute, and all ideas are theory based, not factual. as a fact is defined as being indesputable, and not many scientific theories(evolution included) have been elevated to such a position.

but i'm rambling, tell me escapist why do fvery few partake in discussion anymore

Dear Shrub231,

Your notion of theory and fact are not the scientific view, theories do not graduate to facts, theories are the framework around which facts are explained. For example there is the law of gravity which is based on the fact that every observation that has been made of masses attracting each other is proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them (roughly, it's actually more complicated than that). The theory of gravity states that objects with mass attract each other because they bend space time.

Theories are much more useful than simple facts, facts only tell what is. Theories allow us to make predictions. Theories are the essence of modern science.

You say not many scientific theories have been elevated to fact. And you are wrong to think they would aspire to such a lowly position. The theory of evolution is a powerful explainer and predictor which makes it much more important than the trivial fact of evolution. Yes, evolution is a fact and a theory, and the theory is the important part.

So, at best, you are unintentionally misleading in your post. People who would ascribe more sinister motives to you would be greatly angered by your apparent duplicity. This, understandably, doesn't lead to the most civil of discourses. So if you want to avoid such situations it would help to avoid posting as carelessly as you did here elsewhere.

 

[KarlMonster]

as of late i have noticed that a great many people don't seem to know what is ment by scientific discussion. as far as my understanding goes, scientific disscussion is to be undertake with an open mind, meaning that nothing is absolute, and all ideas are theory based, not factual. as a fact is defined as being indesputable, and not many scientific theories(evolution included) have been elevated to such a position.

but i'm rambling, tell me escapist why do fvery few partake in discussion anymore

Forgive me for saying so, sir, but your premise is in error.

For a *proper* discussion to take place, having a topic, a handful of theories, open minds, and a willingness to accept a result you dislike; is not enough. For a true discussion to take place there must first be core definitions and concepts (facts) that are accepted by both parties. Sadly, this does not happen.

It is noteworthy that you mention evolution. The trial of 'The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes' might have been resolved in favor of evolution, had the judge not shown bias towards the prosecution. The question of whether Scopes was actually "teaching evolution" was never even raised in court.

 

[Jordi]

There is so much misunderstanding here...

A scientific theory is not indisputable. Ideas and hypotheses do not "graduate" into being theories/facts. Some theories can be proven, but most can not. Just because one unprovable theory (gravity) is pretty much undisputed, doesn't mean that all theories are.

The theory of evolution is disputed because the evidence is not nearly conclusive (far less conclusive than the evidence for gravity for instance). Evolution as a mechanism for global search has been proven in the abstract, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was also the mechanism by which life has changed throughout the ages. It means that it could be. There are of course many clues that are consistent with this view (some people like to call this evidence).
To be honest I think the primary reason that so many people believe in evolution is that there is no real scientific, alternative explanation. That doesn't mean that all criticism is invalid though. For instance, even evolutionists admit there is a "missing link". But a far more significant criticism in my opinion is that people are disputing that the preconditions for evolution are met by the building blocks of life. The argument is basically that the fraction of configurations of amino acids that are viable for life is so small that it would take many times the lifetime of the universe to get one by random mutations. It follows from this that only decreases in complexity and variety are plausible, so we couldn't have evolved from single cell organisms. At most we could have (d)evolved from slightly more complex proto-humans (and dogs from proto-dogs, etc.), which is nicely consistent with the intelligent design view.
I personally still believe that the evolution theory is probably true, but I haven't been able to come up with a convincing counter-argument for this yet. If anyone does, I'd be interested in hearing it. But if you can't, maybe you shouldn't be claiming that the theory of evolution is indisputable, and you should instead keep an open mind like the OP suggests.

On the other hand, as some people pointed out, this is the internet. And on a forum like this, with high school kids and anonymity, you are bound to get discussions that are less than scientific. I was a lot more surprised to see that this phenomenon also occurs with real scientists who are posting under their real names in LinkedIn groups.