Monday, February 17, 2014

Trolls and Trolling

It is likely that any public information outlet which allows commenting will be trolled. By trolling, I mean the type of comments which are merely mean-spirited, destructive and without any actual content. In other words, vandalizing the source which allows the comments. I make this distinction because other sites have defined trolls somewhat differently, such as was done at the popular science site, which shut down comments altogether, with this comment:
"A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.
In other words, dissent to the "established scientific undeniable Truths" is considered trolling at popsci.

And there is this, from Slate regarding a study (behind a paywall) on the Dark Tetrads to which trolls belong (Looks more like "pentads" to me):
"...what a new psychology paper has to say about the personalities of trolls themselves. The research, conducted by Erin Buckels of the University of Manitoba and two colleagues, sought to directly investigate whether people who engage in trolling are characterized by personality traits that fall in the so-called Dark Tetrad: Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others).

It is hard to underplay the results: The study found correlations, sometimes quite significant, between these traits and trolling behavior. What’s more, it also found a relationship between all Dark Tetrad traits (except for narcissism) and the overall time that an individual spent, per day, commenting on the Internet.

In the study, trolls were identified in a variety of ways. One was by simply asking survey participants what they “enjoyed doing most” when on online comment sites, offering five options: “debating issues that are important to you,” “chatting with others,” “making new friends,” “trolling others,” and “other.” Here’s how different responses about these Internet commenting preferences matched up with responses to questions designed to identify Dark Tetrad traits:

[emphasis added]






I encourage dissent here, if it is principled and disciplined, up to the point where it becomes obtuse and/or obstructionist. But the purposefully destructive trolls must be eliminated; they are psychologically damaged and demented. Now there is evidence to that effect.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Stan

I recently read that atheist cosmologists claim the universe/big bang was a result of fluctuations in the quantum vacuum and that this refutes the neccesity for a non-material first cause to have caused the big bang and our material universe.So far,all the sources I've searched for on the web seems to favor the materialists position.I was wondering (as a last resort) what your take on the issue is?I do value your opinion,hence my regular visits to your blog.

Tjay

I apologize for the off-topic post.

Stan said...

TJay,
All reasonable comments are welcome, especially when they coincide with the blog's purpose.

The idea of a pre-existing quantum field as the cause for the universe is both unprovable/improbable and not a cause for materialism.

The pre-existence of a quantum field which could generate a universe which exploded at the accelerated rate of the initial expansion is without any correlate, and is thus merely a Just-So-Story. Here’s why.

First. Given that our universe has a quantum field which fills it. Now, if universes were to come from such a field, then we would see that happen. We don’t . It’s the same thing as expecting a universe to come into being for no reason at all, from nothing: If that could happen, then it would happen, and we would see it happen. Further, it would happen frequently if not all the time, because it would be an unregulated function.

Since we don’t see it all the time, if that function exists then it is a regulated function, meaning that it has rules for when it does allow universes to happen and when it does not allow them to happen. That requires a different kind of quantum field than that in the universe.

Second, the entire concept of a field is meaningless in pre-expansion non-space/time. There can be no field if there is no space and no time. The concept is logically absurd. (Note that at this point they will deviate into “infinite universes” as the next excuse: that falls outside of materialism also: it cannot be proved using material techniques. And further, it does not obviate the necessity for a causal agent.)

The idea that an originating field is the same as origination from nothing was promoted by Lawrence Krauss, who caught a lot of flak because the content of his book did not reflect the title of his book, which was “A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing”. But he did not start with “nothing”; he started with a field, the source of which he declines to comment on. I felt that the book was an explicit fraud designed to sell books.

So the pre-existence of both (a) a different kind of quantum field, and (b) rules for when universes are allowed to occur using that field, all of which occurs outside of the existence of mass/energy and space/time which were not yet created, that absolutely defeats the concept that mass/energy and space/time are all that exists; i.e., Materialism is false. Materialism, being false, cannot withstand serious scrutiny.

Third, the theoretical sciences have left the material realm decades ago, and entered the realm of the “darks”: dark mass, dark energy, most of the universe is unobservable (dark to us), probability waves are unobservable, accelerator collision products are unobservable, and the cause of the Big Bang is unobservable: Materialism fails, even in these sciences. This has implied that a new ‘science’ is required because the old mass/energy restrictions have failed.

If you have more questions, let me know. I can recommend books on these subjects.

Robert Coble said...

PART I:

A good reference for discussion of this topic that is understandable from a layman's perspective (in other words, those who are not theoretical physicists):

New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy
© 2010 Dr. Robert J. Spitzer
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
ISBN 978-0-8028-6383-6

"Chapter 1 begins with a brief account of the general elements of classical Big Bang cosmology, and shows how these combined elements ground the contemporary position that our observable universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old and 13.7 billion light years in radius (from its theoretical originative center). The chapter then gives a brief account of developments in the contemporary Big Bang model that allow for an initial state that may be conceived in terms of quantum cosmology and/or string theory, and universal inflation (a hyper-accelerating phase of expansion in the early universe, seemingly caused by "vacuum energy" or "dark energy").

"The classical Big Bang model seemed to indicate a beginning of the universe at a Hawking-Penrose singularity, but this was mitigated by the contemporary Big Bang model, which opened up the possibility of an early quantum cosmological era and an inflationary dynamic (allowing our universe to be but one amidst a multitude of possible universes within a theoretical multiverse). this mitigating view was itself subsequently mitigated by the discovery of Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin that every inflationary model universe (and/or multiverse) must have a beginning. Since this indicates and edge of time (prior to which there is no time), the conclusions of Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin point strongly to a creation of the universe (from no previously existing physical matter-energy). The cause of such a creation would then have to transcend our universe (and any multiverse in which it might be situated)." (pp. 4-5)

There are other (different) arguments given in the Scholastic tradition concerning the Aristotellian/Thomist conception based on a series of essential causes operating simultaneously, with the logical requirement for a "first cause" (i.e., the Uncaused Cause or the Unmoved Mover) in any essentially ordered series of causes. That argument is also made in Dr. Spitzer's book in a very detailed step-by-step breakdown. Since it involves chapter length argumentation, I won't even attempt to summarize it here for fear of losing something vital from it. The book is well worth the price.

Robert Coble said...


PART II:


Dr. William Lane Craig is the most notable proponent of the Kalām cosmological argument.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/kalam

The Kalām cosmological argument:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

That argument can be modified (perhaps not safely, since I am no expert) to read:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. (First Principles of Logic)

2. The physical universe (and/or physical multiverse) began to exist. (Classical and contemporary Big Bang Cosmology)

3. Therefore, the physical universe (and/or physical multiverse) has a cause. (Conclusion)

4. Since all physicality (matter-energy, space-time, etc.) is by definition included in the physical universe (and/or physical multiverse), the cause of the physical universe (and/or physical multiverse) must be non-material, i.e., transcendent.

5. Given the nature of the physical universe (and/or physical multiverse), the non-material (transcendant) cause must possess sufficient intelligence and power to have the effect of creating the physical universe (and/or physical multiverse). In short, the cause must be both necessary and sufficient for the effect (creation of the physical universe (and/or physical multiverse)).

Another argument for a beginning to the physical universe is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

1. The physical universe (and/or physical multiverse) is a closed system because it encompasses all that space-time, matter-energy, etc.

2. In a closed system (such as the physical universe (and/or the physical multiverse)), entropy either remains the same (stasis) or increases as useful energy is expended, unless energy is added from outside that system.

3. We have posited a closed system encompassing all of physical reality; consequently, there is "nothing" outside of that closed system: "nothing" meaning no energy that could be added to overcome entropy and "no thing" to add that non-existent energy into the closed system.

4. Since entropy always increases over time as useable energy is dissipated, if infinite past time existed (i.e., the physical universe (and/or physical multiverse) has always existed), then entropy would have increased to maximum and all useable energy would have been dissipated.

5. If step 4. was true, we would not be having this discussion.

6. Therefore, infinite past time does NOT exist. Consequently, the physical universe (and/or physical multiverse) began to exist at a finite past time. Actually, the beginning of time occurred concurrently with the beginning of the physical universe (and/or the physical multiverse).

7. But that leads us back to the Kalām cosmological argument, given above, in which it is demonstrated logically that the universe has a non-material cause.

Robert Coble said...

PART III:

Notice something significant about the argumentation used above:

There is NO appeal to religious authority (i.e., a HOLY BOOK) nor to "blind faith" nor to any "God of the gaps" nor to any other atheist trope.

There IS logic and metaphysical demonstration of truth. If the premises of the arguments are true AND the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, THEN the conclusion is true NECESSARILY.

If the conclusion (to wit: a transcendental Cause of the material universe (or material multiverse) NECESSARILY exists) is true, then materialism and atheism NECESSARILY are false.

This highlights one of the problems that I have experienced in arguing this position. Those who are ignorant of metaphysical (logical) proofs (or who are merely being sloppy in their thinking and argumentation) ASSUME that the process of establishing an empirical scientific "proof" is essentially the same process used in establishing a metaphysical proof.

Not true. Not even close.

Robert Coble said...

PART IV:

The empirical method assumes a hypothesis, formulates a method for gathering data either confirming or denying the hypothesis, and then establishes a probability based on the empirical results of experiments. It is a positive method for ascertaining specific truths about specific things. Some specific piece of information is gathered about the specific proposition which can be empirically proven to be "true" (contingently) but which leaves a virtual infinity of facts unaddressed and unproven. For example, if one "proves" the existence of an electron, one does NOT "prove" anything about the existence of the remaining infinity of possibilities (i.e., protons, neutrons, quarks, etc.). Whatever has been "proved" says NOTHING about anything else. Consequently, all of empirical science concerns specific "factoids" (to borrow Stan's very descriptive phrase) which are contingently true (i.e., true until further knowledge is gained which MAY disprove the hypothesis). One can never gather exhaustive data to NECESSARILY prove any scientific "fact" (even in principle) by exclusion of any other possible explanation. The "science of the gaps" argument often used by atheists ("We don't know what is true right now, but we are working on it") is as laughable as the "God of the gaps" argument made by some theists.

On the other hand, metaphysical (logical) proofs are necessarily universal - it's an "all or none" situation. A logical proposition is either true or false; not neither true, not both true. [A] in combination with [NOT A] constitute the entire "universe" of discourse. The usual method in metaphysical proofs is to "prove" that "such and such" is NOT the case (the so-called via negativa). Consequently, if [NOT A] is false, then [A] must necessarily be true.

This leads to considerable confusion and consternation on the part of those(i.e., materialists and atheists) who do not understand metaphysical proofs. In particular, when confronted with a syllogism for which they cannot disprove any of the premises AND for which the conclusion necessarily follows AND is true, they refuse to accept the conclusion based on their "faith" that only material things exist AND that only empirical science leads to truth. In fact, they become highly offended at being "forced" to accept a true conclusion, all the while bleating about how "rational" and "logical" they are being (by their own definition).

Their very "faith" in science rests on a host of metaphysical presumptions which they have never made explicit and which they have never examined.

One such presumption is that the First Principles of Logic are necessarily true. Yet there is no empirical method for “proving” that these First principles are true.

Another such presumption is that the universe is rational, i.e., that the universe is based on a rational order and "laws" governing its behavior. There is NO empirical test which can "prove" that metaphysical truth. Yet without that metaphysical presumption, science qua science cannot even begin.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your input Stan,much appreciated.I need to digest this info.I'm also busy reading Danah Zohar's Quantum Self (last 2 chapters),she's a phd physicist and philosopher,as well as a dualist propogating the Quantum Vacuum hypothesis as fact,unfortunately.
==
Robert Coble
Thanks for that info

Cheers

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your input Stan,much appreciated.I need to digest this info.I'm also busy reading Danah Zohar's Quantum Self (last 2 chapters),she's a phd physicist and philosopher,as well as a dualist propogating the Quantum Vacuum hypothesis as fact,unfortunately.
==
Robert Coble
Thanks for that info

Cheers

Robert Coble said...

Another excellent source:

Job Opening: Creator of the Universe—A Reply to Keith Parsons (2009)
Paul Herrick

(Link: http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_herrick/parsons.html)