Defining trolling
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Sure, didn't I just say that?
And just as obviously they will be refuted and derided and shown to be completely without substance when necessary.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Most my threads in the fringe section are simply derided and trolled with no proof to the contrary, usually culminating in outright flaming and insulting me as ignorant, stupid, or foolish. Very few times has the evidence I presented ever been refuted here.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Did I ever say I didn't want my evidence criticized? Where did I ever say that?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
It seems to me that the crucial feature of troll behaviour, from the definition you supplied, is the intent to annoy, provoke or disrupt.
So it seems to me that simply posting unscientific ideas, or even nonsense, is not trolling unless that is the intent. The essence of trolling is acting in bad faith, to provoke a response from the community. The problem in practice is that people cannot know for sure what the intention of a poster really is and so it is inevitable that judgements have to be made as to the likely motivation of the poster. Hence accusations of trolling are likely to be made where a person keeps reiterating an unscientific viewpoint that ignores the comments pointing out where it goes wrong, or where a person keeps moving the goalposts so that a point can never be established or a conclusion reached. Motor Daddy and the boat was one classic case. River's determinedly stupid questions about water in the chemistry section was another.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
[/B]
Actually annoying, provoking, and disrupting more accurately describes the behavior of those who get upset about a new thread that goes against their beliefs. In this case, the belief in science. Thus you have one person being harassed and belittled by an angry mob of other posters all in the name of good science which in fact fits the definition of trolling given in the OP. This person may even post in another subforum on an unrelated topic and further get attacked and insulted for that other thread. That's another aspect of trolling---dragging in other thread issues into an entirely unrelated thread. Happens all the time here, even with the moderators.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I'm not interesting in you moaning, I'm interested in getting a common understanding established of what trolling actually is, which was the title of this thread.
Given that, how would you classify someone like Theorist-Constant, who seemed to actually believe the material he was posting? I.e. someone who is not out to annoy people - but who repetitively posts blatantly inaccurate material, and continues to do so even when he is shown to be wrong?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Your definition of trolling as posting and defending unscientific ideas doesn't even match the definition I quoted. Why is that?
Because sciforums is a forum with alternative sections specifically provided for such discussions.
There are pure science forums on the net, and people who don't want anyone to discuss ghosts, monsters, God etc should join them.
Depart to your pristine world of pure science!
If MR started posting parapsychology etc. in the science sections, you would be justified in asking for his removal.
As things are, avoid the woo sections if you don't like them.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Although those that deride your nonsense may not have actual evidence as to what your claim is, other then unexplained at that time, your penchant to immediately jump to the most anti science conclusion that could possibly be, on a science forum, could certainly be construed as trolling.
As someone said, havn't they got specific ghost forums for this stuff?
As an example, in church groups they would also discuss atheism, evolution and other certain scientific theories, but that doesn't give me the right to burst in one Sunday, crying out that their God is a joke, or a myth, or crazy or whatever.
That's all OK and well and good, but that doesn't mean they should not be critiqued, or actually shown to be wrong.
And from memory, MR has posted woo stuff in the science forums, as have many others, one only this morning.
I just question what drives some of these people that claim they can rewrite 20th/21st century cosmology, or claim they have proof evolution is false, or claim that ghosts and goblins are real. That question being, do they do it to get a raise out of people?
And yep, sure, If I am refuting, I'll probably do the same to get a raise back out of them also, and others would be in the same boat.
Sometimes I do admit, it can be a vicious circle.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Video, audio, and eyewitness testimony IS extraordinary evidence.
"Unexplained at that time" isn't a scientific explanation. It's nothing. So when I say the evidence points to paranormal or extraterrestrial or whatever, I'm simply providing the best explanation we have. And that's not trolling. It's backing up my thread with logical argumentation.
Like I said, we have subforums where posting and discussion of these topics is encouraged. Doing so isn't disrupting, annoying, or provoking anyone who doesn't want to be provoked. Posting a thread doesn't "disrupt" anything. Noone is being targeted and nothing is being sidetracked. Jumping into a new thread otoh and insinuating sarcastically that the poster is gullible or stupid IS disrupting. It's disrupting the conversation of that thread. And that IS trolling.
Last edited:
Like I said previously, what you claim as evidence for extraordinary claims is not conclusive...there are many other possibilities....the same possibilities you in turn deride, or just won't accept.
From what I have seen you propose and suggest, they have all been scientifically rebuked, or at least extreme doubt thrown on your extreme version of what you imagine it to be.
Let's take your Imaginary Big Foot for instance..how old is this entity? Over how many years has he been seen or inferred?Why in this day and age, hasn't more substantial evidence ever been found? How come all we ever see are fleeting photos of someone that could be in a heavy fur coat?
In essence, it is laughable and crazy to claim with certainty that some "monster" exists, that has avoided being captured, or seen. [except by a tiny impressionable minority]
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You need to stay on topic. This thread is trying to define trolling, not trying to prove the existence of Bigfoot. Post about that in the appropriate thread.
Video, audio, and eyewitness testimony IS extraordinary evidence.
Not really. The first two can be faked. Just ask any faked Moon landings conspirators,and eye witness accounts are not always trust worthy.
That's only your own impressionable opinion. Unexplained, simply means unexplained. If it can't be explained by some scientific aspect, does not give anyone the excuse to claim some silly anal probing Alien.
And in doing so on a science forum, you leave yourself open to refutation, logical applications re other possibilities, evidence to the contrary, and the laws of physics and GR. And that isn't trolling either.
Like I said, it's the method in the madness of certain posters, in trying to purposely get a raise out of people...like the character jcc for example.
I am on topic. You asked a question and posted your view of what a troll is.
I gave an example of an exchange.
You can't prove them wrong.
They are talking about faith, belief, intuition, personal experience.
Their "extraordinary evidence" may be an internal voice, a dream, or something someone told them.
Or something written in a magical book.
It isn't science.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Actually there's many scientific posters who believe in aliens and ghosts and bigfoot. So to claim that science entails disbelief in these is simply not true. You don't speak for science iow. You speak only for yourself and your own beliefs.