Then I submit that threadshitting is a form of trolling, but that not all trolling is threadshitting.Originally posted by Speusippus
Then I submit that threadshitting is a form of trolling, but that not all trolling is threadshitting.Originally posted by Speusippus
There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. -- Ray Bradbury's "Coda"
And not all threadshitting is trolling, I think. The intention isn't always to rile anybody up. There are people who just gotta say what they think on some subjects, no matter if it's appropriate, interesting or on-topic.
Ok, it's time for the obligatory...
"When I use a word", Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
I reserve the right to be bothered by things that don't faze you,
and to cheerfully ignore things that bug the shit out of you.
I am not you.
One of the great things about a phpbb forum is that you can split threads, if someone comes in with a hijack it's easy to split it into its own topic.
"And I hope I don't get born again, 'cuz one time was enough!" -- Mark Sandman
I, for one. First, because as Speusippus said, there's simply no way that any such rule can be enforced objectively. If anything, such a rule tends to be used as a bludgeon against beliefs that one might consider distasteful, which then causes the discussions to degenerate into debates about what constitutes an extraordinary claim or extraordinary evidence.Originally posted by prr
And second, because I don't think this principle is strictly accurate. It does not take extraordinary evidence to show that a patient is suffering from an incurable disease. Nor does it take extraordinary evidence to show that someone is NOT suffering from the same disease. Yet to defend the claim that such a patient has been mysteriously cured, one need only provide evidence that this person had that disease at time A, and then did not have that disease at time B. (One would be justified in double-checking the evidence or seeking alternative explanations, but the point remains -- no extraordinary evidence is required to support that claim. All that one needs are two pieces of unexceptional information.)
Now, there is a kernel of truth to the mantra, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." That's because certain explanations are decidedly more contrived or ad hoc than others. One could postulate that our hypothetical patient was cured by aliens, for example, but this would require introducing additional assumptions (that aliens exist, that they have the necessary healing capabilities, that they singled out this particular patient, that there were able to escape detection, and so forth). Stating that certain explanations are more contrived, however, does not mean that extraordinary evidence is always required in order to substantiate an extraordinary claim.
Nicely put, I think. Plus the fact that "false" is a different category from "unproven". Some things are true, but no evidence of their truth is available. The true skeptic refrains as assiduously from labeling the unproven as "false" as he refrains from labeling it as "true".Originally posted by JThunderRegards,"Can you not remain in doubt?"
"I don't know that I have ever tried."
"You must learn to..."
"But if a man wanted to know so badly that he would die unless it was decided - and no more evidence turned up?"
"Then he would die, that would be all."
- C.S.Lewis, The Pilgrim's Regress, Book 4, Chapter 3.
Shodan