Free Rein to Troll?

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by dumbest man on earth, Jun 29, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,465
    While I accept that their is much sense in what you say, [and I believe I generally give everyone a chance so to speak] there is obviously a "hard core" two or three, that are beyond help. Many times, I have started off reasonably with river, and from my experience, the more reasonable I am, the more willful ignorance and trolling develops. Most recent in a thread showing him illustrations and actual photographs of how gravitational lensing takes place, and it was simply met with the most ridiculous refusal to accept one could imagine. One tends to get rather brutal with such willful ignorance.
    And yes I know that my best shot would be to ignore him, which I am now doing on many occasions, and actually resurrecting some actual science threads, showing up his nonsense.

    It could also be said to be cruel to accuse a person of having phychopathic driven delusions of grandeur, [which I have done] but what else can be done when some Tom, Dick, or Harry, claims to know more then the reputable professional experts out there, from NASA, aLIGO, Virgo, ESA, etc.
    In reality, I do feel sorry for river on occasions after I have given him evidence of why he is wrong, and of his ignorance. Which is why now on some occasions, I'm choosing to ignore him rather then going through the whole sorry process, in showing him the irrationality of his claims.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,615
    Well, yeah. River is a special case.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,370
    Many of these arguments aren't even about science. They are about things like what 'faith' means, how 'God' is defined, in what sense man can be said to be an 'image' of God (to take a few recent very heated threads)... or about whether "the scientific method" even exists, about whether metaphysical naturalism is true, about how sound the foundations of science are, and about whether science (however we define it) is the paradigm for all proper human cognition about any and all subjects.

    Those aren't scientific questions!!!
    Yet they are what a large percentage of argument here on on Sciforums is about!

    Right, I couldn't agree more. Where we differ I think is in who we think the willfully ignorant ones are.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2020
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,615
    I think my response need do more than remind you of the site guidelines:

    "As the forum developed, our interests broadened to include Philosophy and Ethics, Religion, World Events and Politics and other topics. However, we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument. "
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/


    Maybe your issue isn't with the members, but with the ethos of the site owners? What say?
     
  8. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,648
    Which means, Yazata's, posts are disgusting.
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,615
    That's a pretty strongly emotional word.

    Then again, you possibly think I'm disgusting too. I guess we just have a different metric.

    Personally, I don't remember the last time I saw a post that warranted such a word, without that poster being immediately perma-banned.
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,630
    With BwS I find one sometimes needs to aim off a bit to allow for whatever she has been drinking or smoking.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,648
    Yazata, is an intellectually defunct asshole.


    :EDIT:

    Emotional? Yeah, that's when things get done.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2020
  12. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,610
    Respect for the scientific method includes not making purportedly scientific claims that that methodology does not support. Some members do not seem to know that science actually cannot answer every single question we may have nor that there are many branches of human knowledge not accessible by its methodology. And that's completely ignoring the lack of "evidence-based argument" that dominates the Politic subforum, where many positive claims are made without the least bit of supporting argument, much less evidence.
     
    candy and Yazata like this.
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,465

    As usual, you fail to impress, despite your continuing vociferous over bearing rhetorical inaccuracies.
    All those that are able to see through your pretentious disguise are well aware that science does not answer, nor has answered all the questions.
    All those that are able to see through your disguise, recognise your pretentious fake fence sitting and fake even handiness...you know, like your idol Trump?
    All those that see through your disguise see how you wear the meaning of your handle like a badge of honour.
    All those that have seen through your support for your mythical ID support and redneck politics, see the connection as nothing really surprising.
    And all those able to see through your psychological bullshit, also understand why your mythical beliefs, and political redneckery, blind you to the fact of the many pieces of evidence supporting abiogenesis and the many links given detailing that evidence.

    Again as our friend Bertrand Russell said, "Science is what we know: philosophy/psychology is what we don't know.

    Finally you must be aware that your religious and political crusades on this forum, do nothing to change what is right, or the facts and the scientific methodology leading to those facts.
    And as I mentioned earlier, while science certainly does have some gaps, those gaps are continually narrowing, even as we speak, while of course the gaps in any mythical creationist or ID, are getting wider with the notion continually being pushed into oblivion.
    You should also remember that your pretentious fence sitting may lead to an accidental gelding.
     
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  14. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,787
    One can always respect the skills of a medic, but when it comes to bricklaying, insisting upon the use of medicines and bandages is probably not going to get you far. There needs to be some acknowledgement that certain areas of debate are simply outside the remit of the scientific method. And if one enters such a debate one needs to not be ignorant of that fact.
    Of course, they can enter such a debate and argue an entirely scientific viewpoint, which in the case of metaphysics may get them to the front door to be able to peer in, but rarely any further.
    As for the need for critical analysis and clear thinking, that should go without saying.
     
    Vociferous, Yazata and exchemist like this.
  15. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,648
    Yeah. Scientists are inherently "duh" when it comes to quantum physics; nobody understands it but it works by experiment.

    So, you can leave your religion out of it when people are trying to learn.
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,630
    Yes. One can't apply the scientific method to all areas of thought, only to those concerning the physical world.
     
  17. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,370
    Questions regarding the justification, applicability and even the very existence of "the scientific method" itself would seem to be outside the remit of the scientific method.

    I think that the findings of physics in particular are very relevant to metaphysics. It's much harder to say precisely how physics and metaphysics are related. That's an area of intense controversy.

    They certainly are mutually interactive.

    On one hand, physicists employ metaphysics all the time, without spending much time thinking about what they are doing. Physics can probably be described as "applied metaphysics" given all the metaphysical assumptions baked into it. Physicists employ mathematics without any conclusive explanation of what mathematics is or what kind of truth mathematical truths appear to have. They employ general terms without much concern for universals or for what kind of substance-property ontology that applying them to particulars implies. They talk about possibility and necessity without any concern for or knowledge of modal metaphysics. Issues like these can be multiplied without end (and are, in the philosophy of science literature).

    Yet at the same time, the world in which the conceptual apparatus of mathematics, universals and modality are applicable to is the world of physical existence, the world that physics (with some success, if we accept its assumptions) has helped us to understand. Metaphysics is about the world of experience, the world of physics, this universe and not some different one.

    I guess that more or less the way I see it (my views are very much a work-in-progress) is that metaphysics is about describing, understanding and justifying our general conceptual categories when we think about things. And physics is about applying the relevant set of these categories to understanding how the physical(ish) things of experience change over time and interact with each other.

    Until the scientific revolution these were basically one and the same activity. Then people like Galileo started applying simple mathematics to the motions of everything from pendulums to the motions of the planets in the sky, and enjoyed extraordinary success. Soon specialists in doing that kind of thing appeared, along with journals, professional organizations and university departments. So science was institutionalized as something supposedly separate and distinct from metaphysics, and in the view of some of its practitioners far superior. Yet all the metaphysical assumptions are still implicit in all the conceptual categories they use and in all the undoubted successes that they have enjoyed applying those categories to formally describing how the world of experience is perceived to change and interact.

    Physicists typically apply their conceptual categories without a whole lot of reflection (it's how they learned to do physics in graduate school) unless and until problem situations arise, as they did a century ago with the advent of relativity and quantum mechanics. Then we see some of the smarter scientists stepping back and starting to reexamine their basic assumptions and concepts. So physics and metaphysics start communicating once again when problems arise.

    Exactly.

    One of the things that annoys me about Sciforums is the way that some people here try to equate reason with science. So that thinking rationally and analytically about anything means forcing it into the procrustean bed of how physics understands change and interaction in the world of physical reality.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2020
    Write4U and Sarkus like this.
  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,787
    I see it more simply: physics (and science in general) asks "why?" until it can no longer comprehend the question, which is when metaphysics takes over.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Anyhoo - such a discussion should be for the relevant forum, methinks.
     
  19. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,247
    Grok'd and thankx!
     
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,366
    You were asking, recently, about the relationship 'twixt non-interference and supremacism. Honestly, I've given five or six tries, but between the short answer and the historical details that go with it, I haven't decided the best way. I keep thinking the short and obvious about thresholds, but it takes a lot of detail to explain.

    However, the part of the rules you cited, I can be more specific about: It's fluff. Window dressing. It sounds nice as a statement of purpose or whatever, but standards of rational discourse are anathema here, because we don't want to risk silencing political views.

    Which, in turn, is why things get out of hand, sometimes, before we act. It's a policy decision.

    And if you run the standard for action through few enough people—e.g., generally speaking, one person—well, there's the short answer to your question about non-interference.
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  21. foghorn Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    379
    All to your liking of course. Why else would you still be here volunteering your time.
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,366
    See, this is when it's good to remember you've already told us to not take you seriously.

    Meanwhile, no, I don't have the authority to call off the rules. For the most part, neither do I have a lot of authority to enforce them, anymore. And I certainly don't have the authority to alter other moderators' actions while misinforming the member directly.

    For instance, I have someone quoting chapter and verse from the rules. That member probably doesn't want chapter and verse. But after punishing two or three small offenses, the chapter and verse turn to address a larger, related problem, is likely to be disrupted.

    What you see for moderation is what's left. Significant, affecting moderation usually runs through the Administration. It is, for instance, why we black-ink, instead of mod hat, certain problems; prior attempts to deal with similar behavior in the past drew heavy static.

    Moreover, some of us do attempt to observe a measure of guard against direct self-interest. So think of it that way: Some moderators might choose to let others deal with something because doing so directly would create an apperance of self-interest in the action. Thus, if someone doesn't act against a direct offense to which they are proximal or involved, that's one thing; if others don't act, it's because they approve of the outcome. And over the years, it's been pretty clear what needs special protection. Anyone who's been around a while, actually, should be able to figure out which is which.
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,553
    This thread is an excuse for dmoe to start labelling other members as "trolls". Its purpose is the same as his thread about "bullies". He apparently believes that these kinds of threads give him a license to carry on petty battles with other members, by sticking labels on them.

    As with the other thread, no good has come out of this one. So, closed.

    If somebody is trolling, hit the "report" button and let the moderators deal with it.
     
    exchemist likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page