Defining trolling

paddoboy said:
I am on topic. You asked a question and posted your view of what a troll is.
I gave an example of an exchange.
Click to expand...

I already showed that posting about such topics as ghosts and aliens and bigfoot in the appropriate subforum isn't trolling. You have failed to logically show how it is. So no example will serve here.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
You can't prove them wrong.
They are talking about faith, belief, intuition, personal experience.
It isn't science.
Click to expand...


OK.....but you certainly can show how very unlikely some of their claims, alternative hypothesis, and other crap can be.
You can show that logically, there is alternative explanations...you can show that what they regard as "proof" is not proof. You can show again, that extraordinary claims, does require extraordinary evidence.
 
Magical Realist said:
I already showed that posting about such topics as ghosts and aliens and bigfoot in the appropriate subforum isn't trolling. You have failed to logically show how it is. So no example will serve here.
Click to expand...


Showed who? I didn't say it was trolling. But they most certainly and logically will be refuted with any appropriate examples and evidence to the contrary.
You have failed to logically assert that some of the things you seem to claim are actual fact.
My example was an example of that.
 
Magical Realist said:
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.
Click to expand...


Typical. I didn't entail that all scientists don't believe in ghosts, goblins etc.
I said that science and its adherents have the right to refute, deride and show that unscientific claims can be shown to be just that.
Please try and not misinterpret posts for your own benefit.
 
Showed who? I didn't say it was trolling. But they most certainly and logically will be refuted with any appropriate examples and evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Only if it wasn't paranormal or alien or bigfoot to begin with. Many that AREN'T can be refuted. Many others can't. The ones I post here are ones that convince me the most and defy scientific explanation.
 
paddoboy said:
Typical. I didn't entail that all scientists don't believe in ghosts, goblins etc.
I said that science and its adherents have the right to refute, deride and show that unscientific claims can be shown to be just that.
Please try and not misinterpret posts for your own benefit.
Click to expand...

No..deriding posters is off-topic trolling designed to disrupt serious conversation. Nobody has the right to do that here.
 
Magical Realist said:
Only if it wasn't paranormal or alien or bigfoot to begin with. Many that AREN'T can be refuted. Many others can't. The ones I post here are ones that convince me the most and defy scientific explanation.
Click to expand...


:) Can you show me where I have said anything different?
Some may certainly defy scientific explanation, but that does not automatically hold that the default position is Alien or Bigfoot, or Ghosts or Goblins.
They are just that Unexplained, at this time. :shrug:
 
Magical Realist said:
No..deriding posters is off-topic trolling designed to disrupt serious conversation. Nobody has the right to do that here.
Click to expand...
Stop with the pedant please. And they most certainly do have the right to refute and deride any outrageous claim, just as you deride any scientific explanation or cause that you do not understand or want to understand.
 
paddoboy said:
:) Can you show me where I have said anything different?
Some may certainly defy scientific explanation, but that does not automatically hold that the default position is Alien or Bigfoot, or Ghosts or Goblins.
They are just that Unexplained, at this time. :shrug:
Click to expand...

No..lacking any other explanation, when the evidence points to aliens or ghosts or bigfoot we go with those. That's called being objective about a phenomena we don't know either way exists. That's the scientific way, NOT trying to disprove it because you just happen to know they can't exist.
 
paddoboy said:
Stop with the pedant please. And they most certainly do have the right to refute and deride any outrageous claim, just as you deride any scientific explanation or cause that you do not understand or want to understand.
Click to expand...

No...derision and mocking of people IS trolling. It fits the definition given--being a prick because you can.
 
Magical Realist said:
No..lacking any other explanation, when the evidence points to aliens or ghosts or bigfoot we go with those. That's called being objective about a phenomena we don't know either way exists. That's the scientific way, NOT trying to disprove it because you just happen to know they can't exist.
Click to expand...


:rolleyes: Sounds rather contradictory...If something is shown to not be able to exist, or at least very unlikely to ever exist, that logically and sensibly in the absence of scientific evidence, the scientific method will tell us to take that as default position.
 
paddoboy said:
:rolleyes: Sounds rather contradictory...If something is shown to not be able to exist, or at least very unlikely to ever exist, that logically and sensibly in the absence of scientific evidence, the scientific method will tell us to take that as default position.
Click to expand...

There's nothing showing any of these things "not being able to exist." Even if all ufos up till now were really weather balloons and swamp gas, there's no guarantee that tomorrow aliens couldn't arrive and invade planet earth. There's nothing in science saying Bigfoot can't exist, and there's nothing in science saying the paranormal can't exist. Absence of evidence isn't, iow, evidence of absence.
 
paddoboy said:
OK.....but you certainly can show how very unlikely some of their claims, alternative hypothesis, and other crap can be.
You can show that logically, there are alternative explanations...you can show that what they regard as "proof" is not proof........
Click to expand...

Yes, I do that too.
But you can only persuade, not demand that they comply with scientific rigour.
If we want that, we shouldn't have these sections.
They have nothing to do with science.

I can see why you might get annoyed when there are claims that such beliefs are scientific, which of course they are not.
But I'm afraid that goes with the territory.
If we want these sections, we must accept that the people who believe such things think that they are objectively true.
 
Magical Realist said:
There's nothing showing any of these things "not being able to exist." Even if all ufos up till now were really weather balloons and swamp gas, there's no guarantee that tomorrow aliens could arrive and invade planet earth. There's nothing in science saying Bigfoot can't exist, and there's nothing in science saying the paranormal can't exist. Absence of evidence isn't, iow, evidence of absence.
Click to expand...

:)

Let me reiterate, since you seem to be posting obvious thoughts.
While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it still does not give ghosts, goblins, Bigfoot, the default position.
Plus for the reasons I have already given, and that which is also governed by the scientific method, while other more likely probable explanations remain, the highly unlikely stuff like paranormal events remain at best unexplained, and at worst most certainly unlikely.
 
Magical Realist said:
No..lacking any other explanation, when the evidence points to aliens or ghosts or bigfoot we go with those.
Click to expand...
It's not evidence though, it's just wishful thinking and assumption.

If it was truly "evidence" then we wouldn't even be having this discussion and it would be verified fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top