when did scientific discussion become a troll off?

[MercurySteam]

When you became aware the your tongue is in your mouth and that you are manually blinking ........Psychology!!!

Fixed your spelling mishaps.

OP: To be perfectly honest the internet may seem intelligent and wonderful on that surface but below the surface, hundreds of millions of people are lurking, spouting an endless supply of profanity and 'your mom' jokes. Most of us just don't have it in us to take everything seriously.

You think keeping faith in humanity is hard? The internet makes it a whole lot harder.

 

[SckizoBoy]

As a scientist, I can assure you that most of my colleagues do not in fact talk about things in the fanciful way you describe. A scientific discussion usually involves one or more of the following:

-I hate my adviser/students/peer reviewers/funding agency/department head
-My adviser/students/peer reviewers/funding agency/department head doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.
-Most of my/your work was already done in the 1970s. Better, too.
-Do you think we could convince someone to fund work to do X? I mean, we really want to do Y, but no ones going to fund that, so lets get X funded and do Y.
-Hey, do you think there are going to be drinks after the seminar? What about the physics one?
-Hey, who the hell took my pipette?
-Could you please stop printing out XKCD comics on the printer and then plastering them all over my desk?

Heh... exactly the same, only replace the following:

1970's with 1980's
'physics' with 'microbiology'
'pipette' with 'forceps'
&
'XKCD comics' with 'random crap' (not limited to XKCD comics, but rather more unsavoury material)

Most of the conversation that permeates the lab where I work revolves around three things: cheese; cake; and chocolate, so just food in general.

 

[Custard_Angel]

Ever since psychology turned out to be a boring crock of shit.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

It's not really a new issue that some people simply can't be argued with
Also i'd say it's because the troll party doesn't have the extensive knowledge to talk about things in a civilized manner.

 

[Kargathia]

Are you really sure you're looking for a scientific debate? If so, then be prepared to be able to substantiate every claim you make, and list all your sources in every post.

If you're just looking for a good debate: feel free to poke me up any time, it's kinda why I still check these forums.

 

[Togs]

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

You seem to misunderstand the term, "scientific discussion" would obviously follow the scientific method i.e. accept nothing without proof.
In science you can see what ever you want but it has ot be backed up by the evidence, you cant just say something is some way and not expect people to question it.

Oh and theory=fact when it comes to science, Im really getting sick and tired of that misconception.

 

[Kinguendo]

Actually evolution is a scientific fact... it happens, thats the truth. The reasons behind it are the theories, lets not continue to spread the lie that evolution is a theory eh?

Its pretty annoying that you are pretending to be on this pedestal regarding scientific discussion and you dont even seem to know about it, clean up your act.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

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

Theory = Fact in scientific context
e.g. today class we are studying the theory behind the atom.

The theory behind something is the way it works, so the theory of evolution is how evolution is explained and how it demonstrably works, evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution is a way of explaining it, people need to know this.

 

[Lord Legion]

There is so much misunderstanding here...

A scientific theory is not indisputable. Ideas and hypotheses do not "graduate" into being theories/facts. Some theories can be proven, but most can not. Just because one unprovable theory (gravity) is pretty much undisputed, doesn't mean that all theories are.

The theory of evolution is disputed because the evidence is not nearly conclusive (far less conclusive than the evidence for gravity for instance). Evolution as a mechanism for global search has been proven in the abstract, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was also the mechanism by which life has changed throughout the ages. It means that it could be. There are of course many clues that are consistent with this view (some people like to call this evidence).
To be honest I think the primary reason that so many people believe in evolution is that there is no real scientific, alternative explanation. That doesn't mean that all criticism is invalid though. For instance, even evolutionists admit there is a "missing link". 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. But if you can't, maybe you shouldn't be claiming that the theory of evolution is indisputable, and you should instead keep an open mind like the OP suggests.

On the other hand, as some people pointed out, this is the internet. And on a forum like this, with high school kids and anonymity, you are bound to get discussions that are less than scientific. I was a lot more surprised to see that this phenomenon also occurs with real scientists who are posting under their real names in LinkedIn groups.

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.

 

[Phisi]

I think it also has something to do with the aggressiveness of some people who post. I find a lot of people are being rather mean in their posts so people with contradicting ideologies or opinions be even meaner back and flame war ensues.
Oh and theory does not equal fact but SCIENCE!!! works on theories. The theory with the most proof and explains stuff the most accurate is the current 'fact'. For example; Newton's laws of gravity were accepted as fact even though we know they were wrong (* well not quite right and they knew back then as well as Mercury's orbit would have been different) and on a more controversial note; Intelligent design was accepted as fact until evolution came into existence and more so, the evolution of man.

 

[Da_Vane]

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.

 

[spartan231490]

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

firstly: " 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"
Gravity is technically just a theory, that doesn't mean that it's disputable. I would say that evolution has also been raised to that position, I mean "we win, we have fossils." But an open mind is important for any discussion, not just a scientific one, that doesn't make it any more surprising(for me) when I don't find any.

OT: As for why so few partake in discussion now, I don't know what you're talking about. I have had several good discussions lately, both on this site and IRL.

 

[Phisi]

Snip, snipping, snipped

To explain the eye... as best as I know; If some creature were to develop some light sensitive nerves on their skin (maybe evolved from nerve that detects heat, Infra-red light, or such as not burning yourself is very useful) they could use it to hide themselves in caves underwater and come out at night or such (most animals have eyes so it is likely they evolved early one when we were still in water) but this would only tell them if they were in light or dark. If one animal were to develop a slight concave shape of light nerves then they would be able to have an idea where the light is coming from, the more concave the more you can tell where it is coming from until you end up with a hollow ball of light nerves and a small opening. It would be logical to have this ball full of something like a fluid or gel so that dirt and bacteria doesn't collect in it and cause infections. It would also be helpful to be able to rotate the 'eye' and thus rotate the opening to help find where light is coming from. The next step is the lens to allow a image of the world around you. Eyebrows, lashes and lids also help by keeping rain out, stuff away and cleaning the eye respectively. Hope that helps!

 

[Lukeje]

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

Is there any scientific theory that has been elevated to `fact'? I don't think you really understand science...

 

[Kpt._Rob]

I would say it has to do with the fact that, just because one answer or the other is not absolute, doesn't imply that they are equal. Dissenters will say that the proof of evolution or global warming, for instance, is not absolute, so their theory should be given just as much thought. But that's incredibly intellectually dishonest. There is a massive scientific consensus on both of these issues, those few "scientists" (quotation marks intentional) who claim to the contrary, tend to have political or religious reasons for disagreeing, as opposed to legitimate scientific reasons, so they have tailored their conclusions as such.

The idea that creation theory is equal to evolutionary theory is preposterous, and so I am not going to sit around and try to take seriously someone who claims otherwise. That person is not using logic to debate.

 

[Eefness]

Yea sometimes I wish that Bill Nye would come in and ***** slap some people. If anyone could end a science debate it would be Bill Freaking Nye.

 

[Alexlion]

Gravity = Fact
Theory of gravity = how we explain gravity e.g. bend in space time

The earth orbits the sun = fact
the theory = why it orbits the sun again bend in space time

The earth is round = fact
the theory = our explanation of why it formed that way

Evolution = fact
the theory of evolution = our understanding of how evolution works