when did scientific discussion become a troll off?

[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.

 

[Johnny Impact]

Discussion of any kind, scientific or otherwise, includes two things the common person won't do.

First, listening to the other person. In a discussion, each person allows the other to complete a thought, then responds. I don't attempt discussions anymore because other people always interru---

Second, thinking about what is said, perhaps even changing one's view if the evidence is persuasive enough. People don't like to think. They like to tell themselves they know everything. Makes life simpler. Who cares if they're dead wrong?

 

[Atmos Duality]

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.

So this was all just an exercise in deliberately pissing people off?
Good to know.

 

[Asita]

I can't help but look at the premise here and think of a certain video on Open Mindedness, which seems very relevant right now, as I get the distinct impression that the term's been misused a few times in this thread.

 

[Loonyyy]

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.

Quoted because I like the style: If you want to try to play the theory game, here's how it goes: We accept the theory that best fits the FACTS (Observations, things that are "IRREDUCABILY" true, and if another comes along, we compare their efficacy at predicting outcomes, and how they fit the facts. Also, accepting as a rule of thumb, two other things: Occam's Razor for helping to understand which theory is most likely to be correct (Unless assumptions can be proven, I'm not teaching Occam's Razor, those who don't know it shouldn't form hypotheses, look it up), and that a Theory that explains everything predicts nothing (I can say that tommorow the sun will "rise" or it won't: this is worthless, as I will be proven correct in either case. If I say: The earth revolves about it's axis every 24 hours given our definition of time measurements, then the sun will appear to rise tommorow, I can be proven correct by the sun rising, but not it's failure to).

Now, if you use a little simple logic, let's look at "Creation Science" vs The Theory of Evolution.

Creation Science assumes a benevolent creator of some kind (It varies from group to group) often relying on Religions which have been shown by historians to be not factually accurate, and is unprovable by any test so far considered (Making it untestable, which means it can never be anything but a NULL HYPOTHESES. (The Bible is not evidence. Read it. Then circle the contradictions. Your God may be perfect, but his Word sure isn't (This applies to all Abrahmic Religions).

Evolution requires fossils demonstrating evolutionary changes (There are), DNA evidence (There is), and makes no historical or philosophical assumptions. It is the best fit SO FAR. It may be that the reason that everything evolved was due to a God of some kind, or (I hope) a Flying Spaghetti Monster. But until someone can Test and Prove the existence of God, it is not science, it is a Hypotheses. When you can demonstrate it to me, and science in general, particularly Evolutionary Biologists, it will be a Theory. And then Atheists (Who will now have the place of Theists, in believing something which is not rational, providing the existance of God of course) will be forced to resort to your tactics to cast doubt on you, and you'll be the irritated ones.

(Also, to any Christians out there (I used to be one), being the main proponents of Creation Science (To any who leave it to faith, rather than trying to muddy the facts and science, I salute you for your sense), I'd like to point out that your case is impossible and can never be science; does Jesus not say when being tested by Satan "Do not Test the Lord your God." (Which contradicts Gideon's testing of God, but nvm) and the story of Thomas. Your religion depends on Faith. If you have that, then I can't convince you of anything. You are safe. Leave it at that. My philosophy depends on logic, rationality and reason. I demand proof, I have no Faith, and thus, I can only be convinced of things with evidence.


Science is about what is the best explanation for the evidence of the time. The only troll-off if when people discuss science, not when people have a scientific discussion.