RoR: Forum

No Marcus, Linz et al. have pissed off so many real SOLOists over some really trivial stuff, and that's one of the reasons trolls are taking over SOLO now.

Post 21

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 10:06am

Anyone who wants a throughgoing refutation of Intelligent Design should consult Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker or his Scientific American article "God's Utility Function". In the latter, Dawkins describes a certain kind of insect that lays its eggs inside a living host and the larvae eat it from the inside out. He rhetorically asks what kind of God would design such a thing.

Jim

Post 22

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 10:10am

The even larger problem is that the troll "positions" always seem to get some level of support by some of SOLO's veteran mediocre members -- who have themselves become much more bold and annoying. I don't know that we need to lynch any trolls, but there seems to be far fewer quality SOLOists to counter balance this recent wave of mediocrity. In the past there seemed to be an 8 to 2 ratio of quality vs. mediocrity on any given thread. These days it seems more like a 5 to 5 ratio with several threads actually being dominated by pure mediocrity. I've noticed Michael Stuart Kelly trying for a couple of weeks now to fend off a group of trolls an another set of threads. The amazing thing is that he is actually far outnumbered by trolls in that discussion. A couple of times I considered moving in helping him out but every time I thought "do I really want to get involved in what I know will be a useless discussion"? So should the strategy be to simply ignore these discussions knowing that they won't lead anywhere or is it necessary to at least give Objectivism, logic and common sense some level of advocacy? This is supposed to be an Objectivist group afterall though at the moment it probably wouldn't seem that way to new people looking at the forums for the first time.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 8/15, 10:14am)

Post 23

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 10:11am

I agree with Adam. SOLO does seem fairly troll-infested these days. What's with all of the Intelligent Design avocates and can they have the decency to post in the Dissent Forum?

Jim

Post 24

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 10:11am

Marcus,

In the past, Linz unfortunately was not very selective in the application of his censure. If SOLO is to remain useful, it must have a membership and moderation policy designed to keep it useful: cut off trolls at first evidence, while treating participants who have earned respect with respect. Ayn Rand gave us the principle of Justice, and a Randian web site ought to apply that principle.

Post 25

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 11:20am

Adam,

What is your definition of a troll?

Did you regard someone like MSK or Max to be trolls when they first started posting here?

From memory, MSK was often trying to stir things up with his wry little jokes and Max was at first taking opposing views to many SOLOists as well.

What about Marotta? Is he still a troll?

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 8/15, 11:22am)

Post 26

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 11:44am

No Marcus, Linz et al. have pissed off so many real SOLOists over some really trivial stuff, and that's one of the reasons trolls are taking over SOLO now.

Who are the trolls? Who are the "real" SOLOists and why do they leave over "trivial" stuff?

In the past, Linz unfortunately was not very selective in the application of his censure.

Then why were there not more "trolls" and less "real SOLOists" before?

Post 27

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 11:44am

In most cases, if you realize your dealing with a troll and ignore them, they get bored and go away. If they proceed to be more annoying you can ban them. I wouldn't consider any of the people on Marcus' list to be trolls.

Ethan

Post 28

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 11:48am

I have a rather narrow concept of a troll. A troll, in the Scandinavian folk tale, prevented a bridge from being used for the purpose for which it was built. People who are seriously interested in the ideas of Ayn Rand and in current Randian perspectives, and come here to learn, are not trolls. The trolls are the ones who post on SOLO without reference to the Randian philosophical perspective, and come here strictly to promote their own agenda - or simply to interfere with our discussions - and not to learn. When someone's lack of serious intellectual engagement with the Randian perspective becomes evident, that poster should be identified as a troll and discarded.

Post 29

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 11:59am

Adam,

Thinking back on it, you must realize that the difference between "Marotta" and a troll is our familiarity with him. Most of us do have major differences with him, but he stays here and he debates (well, more grandstands) with us. Marotta often mocks SOLO and calls us "cultists" to our faces.

However, we got to know him and most of us probably like him now (well, more tolerate and sometimes enagage).

I still contend that any trolls that stick around and debates, will probably turn into "SOLOists" tomorrow.

As Ethan states, we don't have to engage them if we don't wish.

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 8/15, 1:05pm)

Post 30

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 1:17pm

Marcus,

The fact that MM continues to disagree is not an indication of a lack of intellectual engagement - his disagreement often illuminates. A troll, on the other hand, is counterproductive here, if only by taking the time needed to filter it out.

My suggestion is to have a sergeant-at-arms who can bar an evident troll promptly. The supposed troll should be able to appeal to a panel of three 4-atlas members - I would volunteer to serve on such a panel; I hope that others, such as Hong and MSK, would also volunteer - and if the troll is barred, the server would be configured to block the troll's IP adddress.

If this is not done, then there will be no way for SOLO to continue attracting reasonable participants, and the overhead for those of us already here will eventually become too much.

Post 31

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 1:31pm

The fact that MM continues to disagree is not an indication of a lack of intellectual engagement - his disagreement often illuminates.

I am sure when MM first arrived here, he would have been banned under your policy.

So too would have many other familiar faces still around.

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 8/15, 1:49pm)

Post 32

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 12:03pm

Why don't you actually post something that supports ID instead of linking to a whole bunch of sites we could refute, which you would then take no responsibility for and then endlessly link more sites?

1. Stop psychologizing. You don't know what I would do or wouldn't do.
2. Stop boasting. So far, I have nothing but your arbitrary assertion that you could refute anything -- there is a distinct lack of discussion about ideas on this thread. The most anyone here has been able to do so far is to mention the title of book by Pennock which supposedly puts non-Darwinists in their place. The book itself mischaracterizes most of ID and has already been trounced on sites like ISCID.

If anything, your links might prove that ID theorists can't explain how every detail in evolution works...

Uh, no. What the articles I linked to show is that neo-Darwinist explanations of random variation + natural selection are incapable of accounting for (1) where biological information comes from in the first place; and (2) how information could increase from genome to genome, getting more complex and more specified, when all experience -- not to mention all theories that treat information quantitatively, such as Shannon's -- prove that information deteriorates in the presence of randomness . . . unless it is purposely put back in.

What the articles (which you haven't read, and apparently have no intention of reading) show is that, if it has any effect at all, neo-Darwinist "variation+selection" has a preserving effect on species: it weeds out the variations and maintains the species status quo, or it may lead to small variations within a species (such as the different varieties dog); but it cannot, in principle, explain how a tree shrew becomes ape-like, or an ape-like creature become man.

but surely none of it will shed the slightest evidence of an intelligent being (other than a human) at work creating beings, DNA, RNA, or anything at all.

3. Stop pretending omniscience. You couldn't possibly know what does or does not shed light on these matters until you at least acquaint yourself with the literature -- the major arguments and the major authors. I've already posted LOTS of information. Here are the authors to investigate:

Michael Behe (biochemist).
Michael Denton (physician/biochemist)
David Berlinski (philosopher/mathematician)
William Dembski (philosophe/mathematician)
Soren Lovtrup (embryologist)
Giuseppe Sermonti (geneticist)
Fred Hoyle (astrophysicist)
David Bohm (physicist)
Francis Crick (biochemist)
Stuart Kauffman (biochemist)
Stephen C. Meyer (biochemist)
Hubert Yockey (physicist)

Not all of the above support ID. They are, however, all anti-Darwinist and believe that Darwinist "explanations" have done nothing to advance our knowledge of where life came from and how it grew in complexity. They also believe that Darwinism has stifled free inquiry into alternative theories.

I should also include Stephen Jay Gould.

I mention Gould because, although he never gave up being a Darwinian True Believer, he was intellectually honest enough to admit the gaping holes -- such as the utter lack of Darwinian gradualism and continuity in the fossil record -- in neo-Darwinist theory.

Finally, as for Mr. Reed's statement that I'm "trolling" and that the adminstrator should take "proper action", someone should tell him not to be such an intellectual coward. If he can't (or won't) make an attempt to understand alternative ideas and debate them based on an understanding of them, he should do what all good Objectivists or Libertarians do when they watch something on TV they don't like: change the channel.

Post 33

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 3:14pm

The Grammarian said:

If he can't (or won't) make an attempt to understand alternative ideas and debate them based on an understanding of them, he should do what all good Objectivists or Libertarians do when they watch something on TV they don't like: change the channel.

Click.

Post 34

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 3:57pm

I haven't seen anything completely "trollish" yet....maybe I just haven't been here long enough. I don't think that disagreement necessarily makes one a troll, though. If it did, I be forced to think I was living in a world of trolls! Ugh! No thanks!

Trolls, to me, live in their own heads, expecting others to completely agree with them, or risk dismissal as garbage if you don't. They're overtly sensitive, and read into things that just don't exist. They'll point and accuse, rather than discuss or even ask! That's a troll to me.

I look at it this way, disagreement is an opportunity to forward one's cause. The best argument wins. I've witnessed this happening many times, and I know it works. Using disagreement as an opportunity to ridicule or disparage (or worse, "kick them out") rather than persuade is a complete waste of time, not to mention what I think is a dishonest and infantile approach to disagreement. Ridicule, disparagement, and banishment are all an adversary will remember, taking away nothing that will make them think twice about the issues. Trolls think persuasion is a waste of time, that battles aren't won by spending time trying to make converts. I think that's exactly how their won.

Christianity hasn't stayed around for as long as it has by being "trollish" and alienating perspective converts with ridicule.

Now I know what some of the potential trolls here are thinking:
"She thinks we should turn this into some kind of missionary movement! She thinks we should sacrifice our time to others!"

No, what I'm saying is this: will you continue to stay safe in your own mind by preaching to the choir, openly or secretly scorning differences of mind, or are you willing to expand encounters of disagreement (which will always occur, no getting around it if you want to live in this world as more than a hermit) into exchanges that can possibly open a whole new way of thinking and living to someone with which you disagree? It's a choice. A mature choice at that.

Objectivism is extremely new to the realm of ideas. If one claimed to care about it, I should also think one would seek ways to expand it, and disagreements are one opportunity to do just that. However, I'm not telling anyone to attempt a rational exchange with a borderline mental patient. Fortunately, I don't think the world is full of those, only trolls do.

Best to all the "salesmen" out there today. You've won my respect.

Teresa

Post 35

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 4:20pm

"Uh, no. What the articles I linked to show is that neo-Darwinist explanations of random variation + natural selection are incapable of accounting for (1) where biological information comes from in the first place; and (2) how information could increase from genome to genome, getting more complex and more specified, when all experience -- not to mention all theories that treat information quantitatively, such as Shannon's -- prove that information deteriorates in the presence of randomness . . . unless it is purposely put back in."

I'm not sure about the "specified" portion of the argument. Rather, I've always thought that it was a "resistant" type of variant that emerged, not a specified one to the environment, as can be seen by existing forms of infectious germs which evolve to be resistant to treatment within a decade or so. Medical science is now worried about "super strains" of HIV infections, as a current example.

Species evolve to resist certain environmental elements, not to be more specified to them. Does that make sense? Otherwise, we could have polar bears living in Florida, and geckos living in Montana.

Teresa

Post 36

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 4:50pm

Grammarian --

Let me explain to you the Objectivist position that most of the people here take for granted. While I am sure that some of the scientists you have listed have developed some arguments of merit against aspects of Darwinism and perhaps deserve attention the ultimate goal of proving that the universe has actually been "intelligently designed" will remain entirely a matter of faith until some kind of valid evidence exists of an actual designer. Objectivists do not accept any knowledge that is not rooted within a specifc set of epistemological guidelines and this is an area in which most academic scientists will agree with us. The logical error present in this case is the claim that because the universe is structured in such and such a way it necessarily follows that there MUST have been some intelligent being or entity that has designed it. This is a textbook example of "begging the question" because no valid knowledge has been presented to argue for the actual presence of a designer. Further, it is even more silly to make the leap of faith and claim that because of this so called "scientific evidence" the followers of specific religous faiths along with all of their mythologies and dogmas have been scientifically vindicated. This compounds logical error with logical error and is the ultimate assertion of arbitrary nonsense coupled with a sneaky attempt to claim that it is all backed by science (which is exactly what those actually pushing "ID" politically and in the press are ultimately attempting to accomplish). This is the type of intellectual trickery that you will find Objectivists being critical of and I can understand why some of the people here are blowing up when they see what seems to be yet another person advocating this kind of intellectual dishonesty. Arguements against elements of Darwinism are absolutely acceptable if they are based upon valid evidence.

- Jason

(another thing that is not particularly liked on SOLO is the use of nicknames in the place of real names so you may want to consider changing over to your actual name.)

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 8/15, 5:15pm)

Post 37

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 8:03pm

Grammarian,

heresy ;-)

Post 38

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 8:07pm

Luke,

The topic: "Intelligent Design: "What does it accomplish?"

My answer: A fabulous interior. (Try saying it with a lisp.)

How is it you have so much trouble with a simple joke?

Post 39

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 9:01pm