when did scientific discussion become a troll off?

[Atmos Duality]

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.

It's a rational force arguing with an irrational force. Of course it's an easy topic to troll.
As everyone has pointed out: It's the Internet. Anonymity makes people into assholes.
If you put your beliefs up (no matter what they are) expect them to be slaughtered whole-sale for nothing more than a few yucks at least because SOMEONE out there is going to hate you for keeping them.

 

[Suicidejim]

I would say it generally comes down to a lack of open-mindedness and common courtesy. Too often you get people who are determined to convert their opposition to their point of view, but have absolutely no intention of seeing the other side of the issue, and will resort to insults and flawed logic to voice their disagreement. What makes that worse is that it's very hard for the other side, who has presumably been offended, to then continue being reasonable and polite, so eventually they either leave in disgust or it turns into a two-way insult hurling contest. Also, those who are most likely to enter discussions and forums about these kinds of things will be people who are passionate about the subject, i.e. the ones with the more extreme views.

Now, before someone attacks me on it, no, I don't have evidence for my above points, and yes, they are just hypotheses. That's one of the issues with the scientific debates in particular, it's heavily reliant on empirical evidence, so people are a stickler for fine details, and often won't listen to you until you've presented statistics and evidence to back you up (but even if you do have the attention span for something like that, nobody will pay attention to any evidence you provide if it contradicts their position).

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.

Regarding that criticism, my only point to add would be that evolution is not, and has never been, a theory on the origin of life. It's simply not well-equipped to deal with something that no theory has ever been able to comfortably address. If you imagine some complex equation where you're pretty sure you've figured out a big chunk of it, but yet there seems to be a lot left to figure out, that's kind of where we are. We have one of the key mechanisms, but we're still missing details. If those could be filled in, we may be able to better address your concern. Until we know how life began, we can't be sure exactly what the original conditions were like, and what mechanisms may have been involved. I realize that barely counts as a counter-argument, but it's important not to confuse evolution with a theory on how life began, since that's a common misconception (I'm not saying that you did, but it came close).

 

[Snoozer]

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!!!!

I think this is a media problem. Media "overinterprets" some things to get news more interesting. In fact if you look at these dangers, no scientist would tell you that they are gona kill everybody wihing no to time. The problem is that people are getting desensitised and won't understand a real threat anymore if they see one.
Global warming is a perfect example. If people would look at facts they would realize that it can't work to blow CO2 in the air forever, that there will be in fact changes that will lead to global problems, but that this won't occour RIGHT NOW ALL AT ONCE !!!! but rather serval years, so we have to change our attitude.

Swine flu by the way never was that dangerous, in fact swine flu is less dangerous that the normal flu and saved thousands of lives in cases in which people were infected with the less dangereous swine flu insead of of a normal flu.

The reason why there is so little scinetific discussion is easy:
People are dumb, don't inform themselves and are not trained to work scinetific, so they simply can't.

 

[Lord Legion]

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.

No. No no no no no. You don't go around saying there are flaws to a theory and then name them, when all they are are just byproducts of your own ignorance.

On this specific example...

You are welcome.

Thanks lol. Yeah, I kinda realized all that when I pressed post, but had other things to attend to rather than rewrite it all. No need to get snippety tho hahaha, my specialty lies near cosmology, not evolutionary science.

 

[DannyHale09]

I bet 80% of the people here explaining how 'some people are just too immature for a real adult discussion' are actually the 'trolls' he was referencing.

I hate the term 'Troll' it's so overused by annoying online children that were raised by the internet.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

When people (on both sides) don't really know what they're talking about and get fanatical. The number of pretentious arsehats I've seen on here talking about SCIENCE!!! like it's a god-damned religion is ridiculous.

 

[Nudu]

Well, if I'm talking reproduction, I'm not going to treat the sex theory and the stork theory as equal. Same thing about evolution.

People often misunderstand what "theory" means. It doesn't mean that you can spew out all sorts of nonsense and call yourself a scientist.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

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

This is why. You can't have a "scientific discussion" if a lot of people do not even know what a scientific theory is. It is the highest status that can be achieved in science.
http://www.notjustatheory.com/

 

[dmase]

Go look up scientific theory and scientific fact before continuing this. To be honest i'm not sure why you would argue whether or not evolution is real. You can argue a lot of mechanisms involved if your an intelligent design person you can argue that god has pushed evolution the way he wants but there is no question evolution is a thing[HEADING=1].[/HEADING]

 

[lacktheknack]

Aaaaaaaand a bunch of the first few posts came out as angry and high-and-mighty. Well meta'd, Escapist.

Anyways, probably around the point that someone disagreed with someone else.

 

[Dimitriov]

Impartiality is not in line with the emotional nature of being human.

And that's a good thing, truth is more important than facts

 

[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.