when did scientific discussion become a troll off?

[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.

 

[Samoftherocks]

Ever since the Bible started being provably wrong...

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

99.63% (+/- 2% margin of error) of Internet "arguments" are not, in fact, arguments. They are variations on the theme of "Let me tell you how right I am about (Subject X), and how wrong you are if you disagree with me on any facet thereof".

Of course, this fairly well mirrors non-Internet "arguments" as well.

 

[SammiYin]

I love all the people who are like "Evolution is so totally a fact and I cannot possibly be wrong!"
It's almost as if they read the OP, and thought "I'm going to play right into your hands sir, and troll ol ol"
Because no, nothing is 100% provable. Let's take an example very few people would disagree with, if I run off a building I will fall. You still with me? Good. Let's assume I get 10,000,000 people to run off this building [I'll tell them there's a new Valve game at the bottom or some crap], but no matter how many chumps I get to run off that building, I can never, ever, EVER guarantee that people will continue to drop, because it's conceivable that someone may just keep running, and while it's conceivable, it's possible.

So that's why scientific discussion is a troll off, there's no definite answer to anything [more likely and useful ones yes, but nothing is certain] and people who claim otherwise, the one's in the arguments, claiming these facts as god given gospel, are ignorant people, and ignorant people usually...Hmm what do they do? Oh yea. They be stupid on the internet.

 

[justnotcricket]

Er, scientific discussion has always been a troll-off =D Just go to any university department seminar or conference presentation, and you will see that the audience is full of people who will troll the speaker mercilessly because they feel that it makes them look smarter/more important etc. They seem to feel that because their idea is different, they must shout it louder and more obnoxiously/aggressively to make sure it is heard. Throwing in some personal/bitchy comments about the other side of the debate is part of the fun, right?

Bleh.

Seriously, if you can get two scientists to have a discussion about any scientific topic that *stays* civil, then you might just have worked a miracle ;-)

 

[bloopblerp]

put this on the forum homepage

http://i.imgur.com/ygck6.jpg

 

[CrystalShadow]

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.

Sorry, but no. Scientific theory is based on observation. NOT fact.

Evidence in a scientific sense is never conclusive, and a scientific 'fact' is primarily a fact in a statistical sense.

No amount of evidence can prove something is true. Therefore science does not deal in 'facts' as long as you refer to a fact as being something that is 'indisputably true'.
But if you're dealing in absolutes, you're now talking religion, not science.

 

[Happy Sock Puppet]

I see a lot of in-depth posts here, but here's the short version:

The discussion become a troll-off when thick-headed religious people (the pillar of salt story, walking on water, water to wine, zombies, etc) created a forum ID. They are too bound up in magic to discuss anything scientific.

 

[Zaik]

I like how a bunch of the people in this thread got trolled by the OP.

Stay classy, internet.

 

[Sozac]

Sorry wrong thread, but yeah sorry about that. I think it became a troll off a little bit after the internet made because the internet is where the word "troll" in the computer sense originates.

 

[Avatar Roku]

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.

I find a lot of the problem here stems from a misunderstanding of the word theory. People think that, in this context, it means a possibility that has been put forth. And that IS one definition. But a scientific theory is actually using the word "theory" in the sense of "the opposite of practice".

i.e "That is theoretically true", not "I have a theory on this situation"

It is used in that sense because a scientific theory is an explanation of, among other things, a process which can be used to predict future outcomes.