when did scientific discussion become a troll off?

[hermes]

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

Pretty much this.

Even when there was no religious or political interest under it, scientists are very protective of their ideas (since are theirs) and will defend them even when proven wrong. Many examples in science's history involve as much ego as any other topic.

For example: Einstein was not well regarded among those that defended Newtonian physics, long after they were proven wrong. Later on, Einstein himself didn't thought highly of quantum physics, even when it was proven that it works.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Are we talking about the internet? Because everything on the net becomes a troll off. If we're talking about RL discussions on the topic of global warming or climate change, its because of the billions of dollars involved.

 

[Eliam_Dar]

... all ideas are theory based, not factual.

This is the problem, theory does not mean the same by scientific stndards than common day speaking. You see, a theory is a well sustained explaination based on facts - hence factual. it can be disputed, sure, but the new explanation should fit the facts much better than the current theory.

 

[gbemery]

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.

What I take from OP's post is that he/she (didn't look at profile) is not arguing that theories are just willy nilly promotions by scientists. Instead trying to make the point that even if you want to have a valid scientific discussion on scientific theories it's too much of a pain in the ass. Reason being that yes most educated people will know that scientific theories are tirelessly tested over and over and have been built upon and amended and changed, but it seems if you just question one aspect of it saying something like "well what if light is not a particle or wave but another variable we haven't thought of" or "well what if light is just a bunch of particles that don't just shoot out in straight lines and bounce off of objects but actually have a pull towards each other and cause a spinning effect? so that the wave observations are caused by light not being actual waves but of particle with a more complex motion that give the semblance of waves?" These are all valid questions to ask and they set the stages for creating a hypothesis and testing it, but so many people will jump on the "OMG NO LITE haz Bun tested exTENSIVELy FU and your BLASPHEMY!!! BURN IN FIRE!!! ARRRR how dare you question that which has been tested!!"

That lumped in with how everyone feels like nitpicking nowadays, and with words being able to have multiple meanings and vague meanings too, people like to pick and choose what words mean. So you'll have instances where two people are just arguing the semantics and not the over all point.

Then people see trigger words grouped together like "why, everyone, science, theory" etc, and people see those words then go through the process above depending on who they are. Then shitstorms start to brew. I believe this thread has the potential to be a category 4 Shit Storm by the way, with words per minute upwards to 155.

Yes flat out saying "hey the theory of evolution is just a theory not fact" is a little silly but the shit that gets flung around prevents any real discussion. It prevents people from asking other questions out of fear or the simple not wanting to be annoyed by flamers. Its from people asking questions that science gets moved forward. A question from someone who doesn't believe in evolution, or the specific theory you believe in, might give you a different viewpoint from which to observe and test from. Now if you deny those questions and just brush it off as being stupid than you are no less stupid than you thought them to be. The old adage that there are no stupid questions is true, because any question can provoke a thought pattern you might not have had. A lot of great scientific discoveries and testing data were made by complete abstract thoughts or by accident, rather than dwelling on what you already have observed. Any true scientists would accept that any change, large or small, could come and either change a couple of words in a theory or change pages of it. That doesn't mean he can't take solace in the fact that for the most part his theories are sound and reliable as of recent relevant data.

TL;DR: Realize that the basis of science is to observe something and ask questions and test those questions. It's sad how people seem to have forgotten that important aspect of science. There are no stupid questions just stupid people who refuse to accept that point. If someone asks a question there is no reason to put on your armor (armour) and take up the shield and sword to defend your scientific honor (honour for our fine European friends), because to be honest if they don't know, then your speech of "how stupid they are and how so wrong they are" isn't going to change them. Its just going to piss you off and them and increase the energy of the shitstorm until the whole world is covered in feces to the extent you can't tell what's shit and what's not anymore.

 

[Hitokiri_Gensai]

somewhere around the time that people got free will, id say thats when scientific discussion became a troll off.

 

[Fleaman]

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

Ohhh, I see your bloody game. The fact that you have to play victim and fish for sympathy to talk about ID should tell you something, huh? Not that it isn't working, ITT "wah wah science doesn't want to talk about God". If you'd listen, you'd see some great shit being said here, like blablahb's or Loonyyy's fantastic rebuttals, which go mysteriously unquoted.

Look here. A mammal's eye is complex; an insect's is a patch of photoreceptor cells on top of an optic nerve, times 10000. That's bloody easy, I could do that. Even single-celled organisms can manage light detection. And why wouldn't they? What's so divine about being able to see? If you're a cell and you can see, then everyone who cannot see is now your food. That's like the atomic bomb of adaptation; everyone's going to run with that and make it better. In other words, OF COURSE the eye evolved.

Ha ha, but why am I even saying this? Phisi said it all already, which again has gone tragically unnoticed. Hell, I can go to Wikipedia and read a whole article on eye evolution. They've even got a bloody diagram, just for me.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg

But yeah, I'm wasting my time here, because you guys are all going to ignore this diagram and continue to say "eyes, how do they work?" even though the answer is right bloody here. That's the problem; here's why this "scientific discussion" claim is hilarious bullshit. It's because you're not talking to US. You're talking to each other, you creationists, to cry and circlejerk about how everyone's so sick of your nonsense. When YOU say "scientific discussion", you mean "let's gather 'round and talk about how evolution doesn't have all the answers, and about the mysteries of life that are so unexplained". It's a bloody game of 'what-if'. Evidence is unwelcome.

Science is Closed-Minded. You're assumed to be incorrect (Null-Hypothesis) unless you can prove or demonstrate evidence to prove your claims. If your ideas are good, then evidence backs them up, and Science expands. If you require no evidence, then why won't you believe in my Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Quoted for being the definition of truth, from which all other truths are given their worth. Do you get it yet? Why science is so impatient with you? Discussion into Intelligent Design doesn't go anywhere, because you have no evidence. All you can do is try to poke holes in evolution and ignore us when we explain your misconceptions. You have nothing to offer us but a headache.

tl;dr: The development of the eye is easily conjectured, "theory" means "you can assume this to be true for now", your equations inadequately model reality to prove that bumblebees cannot fly, the second law of thermodynamics is still inviolable, the 1953 Miller-Urey experiments demonstrated that a variety of amino acids and other organic compounds can be spontaneously generated in conditions similar to those on earth several billion years ago, and ID is still not science until you can fucking prove it.

 

[Dags90]

I agree most(ly) whole-heartedly... it is certainly the most viable scientific explanation, but that doesn't mean it can fill in all the gaps. And, there are some awfully big gaps in evolutionary theory. Take for instance irreducibly complex systems, such as the eye... for this to come about there would have to have been creatures lugging around useless half formed tumors that had not yet gained any function or value. Survival of the fittest would have excluded them... in fact, in survival of the fittest, it is often the simplest organism that succeeds, and that begs the question as to why life got more complex in the first place.

It still works for me tho.

Your view of evolution is extremely flawed. The eye is not irreducibly complex.

Your specific example is handled conveniently (for me) in this video.

 

[Anarchemitis]

Everyone loves Theory.
Application requires consideration though, so no one bothers.
That's probably why this thread discusses Science instead of Engineering.

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

ummm people like to argue I guess I could start a thread on chickens and people would argue.

 

[Verlander]

When did the online forums of a Computer Games website become a suitable platform for scientific discussion?

Frankly, a vast minority of people on here actually know dick all about science, so having a scientific discussion on here is a bit like a football discussion on an animal husbandry website.

 

[Abengoshis]

When non-scientists began thinking that they know everything about the subjects.

 

[DrSpoy]

I think the problem is when most people draw the line between trolling, fighting and just general discussion. Everything has to be positive for it to be a general discussion (for most people) for fighting it has to be just flat out everyone being a bit more harsh and/or sounding less nice, for trolling it just has to be 2 people trying to be outsmart each other or make them think a decent amount.

 

[luvva]

It's quite simple really - Science itself is becoming a religion with it's own ideology, so rather than entering into debate with an open mind able to question the very fundamental principles of the foundations of science, people are entering it with a lot of baggage and other elements in tow that, when questioned, they react to defensively rather than reasonably. Rather than using logic and reason to try and discuss and debate things, they are simply preaching and trying to convert anybody else who will listen, making it a contest between opposing ideologies rather than a discussion or debate, with an aim towards any sort of compromise or solution to seek answers. This is because, ultimately, such people already have their answers, and are looking to rationalise their answers in the terms of the question.

Science and religion are entirely different concepts, but unfortunately there will always be those who confuse the two.

Science is based on fact, not text. It is the outcome of minds collaborating to form ideas of why and how the world works. As more information becomes available, Science changes its own views. When proven wrong, science accommodates.

Religion is based on faith, not experiment. It is a way to explain unanswered questions, and to justify moral code. As more information becomes available, religion does not change, rather, some parts become redundant, whereas others are emphasised.

Unfortunately, by confusing science and religion, this notion of 'scientific discussion' is hijacked by the notion of faith. I know many scientists who are religious- they are NOT incompatible.

Secondly, target audience matters. I had a lovely scientific discussion with a friend of mine on the concept of a 'perfect vacuum', of which I claimed (as someone who has studied physics), that there is no such thing abiding by the same fundamental laws as this universe. He tried to come up with counter examples, but then I explained why such counter examples did not work, using my own knowledge. On the internet your target audience ranges from those completely ignorant of the subject to those who know the subject like the back of their hand. Aiming your arguments at such a range is extremely difficult, nigh impossible, which goes somewhat to explaining why these threads don't lead to depth very often.

with reference to the quote: Science itself is entirely reasoned, but arguing faith in a theory without knowing why is idiotic.

 

[Badassassin]

Because you know what's funnier than internet people acting like they are well educated? Nothing. This is a video games site, internet is not serious business

 

[Harlief]

and all ideas are theory based, not factual.

There's your problem right there. The word "theory". A scientific theory by definition has undergone strenuous peer reviews, testing and reassessments. Scientific theory is not absolute, but it's the closest we have to absolute truth. Along come people who see theory and equate it with conjecture.

That's why it's a troll-off, because people are conceited enough to think that their own opinions carry the same weight as heavily researched and refined scientific theories, and refuse to back down even when presented with overwhelming evidence.

 

[Robert Ewing]

The escapist is filled with many diverse forum members. Each with their own background, beliefs, and theories on such scientific matters.

Most escapists are quite stubborn to give up their beliefs. This is problematic. Because phase one. Everyone gets down their ideas on the subject. phase two. People read through them, and judge the weaker ones. proving them wrong with some evidence. Phase three, the stronger arguments get picked on. Phase 4 some stronger arguments break down, but because they are stronger arguments, the poster refuses to believe what has been proven. Because he 'knows' that his argument was true. Thus things get twisted and heated. And people begin to troll even a hint of ignorance.

Sorted.

 

[FllippinIDIOT]

this turned into an argument thread. to answer your question it's because people in general and especially those on the escapist aren't exactly good at socializing with others on the internet, its called giving yourself aspergers.

 

[Eventidal]

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.

Actually, I think people DO want to debate. And that's the whole problem.
We're basically taught that you debate with others- even if you know/believe your answer is wrong, you - like a debate team member or a lawyer - must argue for your side because it's YOUR side. We're taught how to win an argument even when you're absolutely wrong, and to never change your mind on the subject no matter what is presented to you. Other people tell you facts and give you new points of perspective to see the argument in a new light? Well, it's still YOUR side, and to accept that they have a point is to give up and lose. And nobody wants to be a loser!

 

[Comando96]

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

Well quite stupidly you seemed to have stated your sentence in such a fashion that only a creationist view of the universe could provide.
Since the dawn of time there has been trolling... so on the 6th day... Eve called Adam a noob in bed? xD

As opposed to the several billion years since the big bang proposed and then humans and then the invention of trolling by "someone" in a cave... or maybe the plains of Africa... or in an igloo.

...but proof... there is a God...
Here we go.

Spoiler

Can you answer what me this?

If
X - 1 = Y
Then what is X?
Y + 1 = X
Yes?

But... what is the actual number X is?
... we can't possibly know.
Why not?
Because we do not know what Y is!
Ok then, what is Y?
... we can't possibly know.
Why not?
Because we do not know what X is!

This is effectively God to the human race.
We can never prove or dis-prove the existence of God or suggest what God would actually be like if God does existence because all we know is what "we are told by God"

However even the stuff we are told by God if it is real must come through humans so it is quite possible that:
X - 1 = Y
According to God but...

Some Human fucked it up later on and:
Human A: "X - 1 = Fish"
Human B: No, your wrong "X - 1 = star"
Human C: Your both wrong "X - 1 = a lamp"

All we can say is that there might be something else, there might not. Lets just hope its not the Reapers from Mass Effect

Short answer... there will never be any conclusive evidence until judgement day if it happens as if there is a God then only God can reveal ones self and cannot be discovered outwardly if God was to meet ones own description.

To say give me proof is a pretty moronic thing to post as it shows a lack of thought.

-------------------------------------------------------

Back to the thread!

There is a simple reason threads about science turn to trolling... evidence... people feel the need to pick a side and pick holes in everything, holes which normally are there and acknowledged but on the internet a single hole seems to disprove the entire enemies argument and then the hole picker wins!

Eventually it turns into a slogging match between people to see who can pick the most holes and then the "winner" is the ones who's idea is the least destroyed.

That is the internet's culture... a stupid one but... there you go.