3 ms·
Calling someone Troll on a science related subjects is tricky business. Science is often based on some form of consensus that is evolving over time. On many sub
by 1337biz 14y ago
Calling someone Troll on a science related subjects is tricky business. Science is often based on some form of consensus that is evolving over time. On many subjects, especial in social science, it is possible to show studies coming to opposing results. Critic boils ultimately down to opinions on if the sample size, method, research questions were the right choices.
I have my doubts that today Galileo Galilei wouldn't have been classified as a troll as well as those back a while ago who made the wild accusation that smoking causes cancer.
- a_bonobo 14y agoI used to do a lot of science-blogging (not in English) and in our circles, a troll wasn't something you'd get from 4chan who'd try to post offending pictures etc., but a "lone crusader on a mission" - someone with apparently unlimited time, someone with his or her own absolutely crazy pet-theory [1], someone who would come to personally attack the author on some past issue on every single post. These people ruin the entire blog, you have to be fast to ban them (very useful with dynamic IPs..) and constantly monitor the comments. I've personally been attacked in "open letters" to government officials [2], calling me a "dangerous lying scientist" because I had the audacity to shred apart a terrible paper on the "apparent dangers" of WLANs. I wouldn't see these people anywhere near Galilei. [1] Examples: evolution is a lie, or global warming is a hoax, or the theory of general relativity is wrong, or the blogger is a fraud [2] - that no-one reads -