Definition of a Troll

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Science is not a 'method' or procedure.
A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.
Science is not a 'research', business, or 'technology'. It is not logic. It is not mathematics. It does not use consensus. only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a debugging method. It is not a computer.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.

...deleted Mantras 5...17...1a...

No argument presented. Trolling.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Science is not a 'method' or procedure. A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. Science is not a 'research', business, or 'technology'. It is not logic. It is not mathematics. It does not use consensus. only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a debugging method. It is not a computer.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.

...deleted Mantras 5...17...1a...

No argument presented. Trolling.

So is your feeble response an indication of your limited IQ or of an equally limited vocabulary, or more likely both.

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.

Fail.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

Hypothesis first, theory afterwards.

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.
It is not possible to prove any theory True. Only fundamentalists try to do that.
Science is not data. Evidence is not a proof. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
Science is not a principle.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

Fail again.

Nope. The theory of the null hypothesis in statistics

No such theory in statistical math.

Robert Wagner wrote:
instructs you the formulate the null hypothesis and then test it i order to form your theory.

Null hypothesis first.

Circular definition. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Science is not a 'method' or procedure.
A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.
Science is not a 'research', business, or 'technology'. It is not logic. It is not mathematics. It does not use consensus. only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a debugging method. It is not a computer.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.

...deleted Mantras 5...17...1a...

No argument presented. Trolling.

...deleted Mantras 17...1a...

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Science is not a 'method' or procedure. A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. Science is not a 'research', business, or 'technology'. It is not logic. It is not mathematics. It does not use consensus. only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a debugging method. It is not a computer.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.

...deleted Mantras 5...17...1a...

No argument presented. Trolling.

So is your feeble response an indication of your limited IQ or of an equally limited vocabulary, or more likely both.

Into the Night is correct on all points. What point are you trying to make?

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.

Fail.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

Hypothesis first, theory afterwards.

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.
It is not possible to prove any theory True. Only fundamentalists try to do that.
Science is not data. Evidence is not a proof. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
Science is not a principle.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

Fail again.

Nope. The theory of the null hypothesis in statistics

No such theory in statistical math.

Robert Wagner wrote:
instructs you the formulate the null hypothesis and then test it i order to form your theory.

Null hypothesis first.

Circular definition. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Troll fails again.

In inferential statistics, the null hypothesis is that two possibilities are the same. The null hypothesis is that the observed difference is due to chance alone. Using statistical tests, it is possible to calculate the likelihood that the null hypothesis is true.

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.

Fail.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

Hypothesis first, theory afterwards.

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.
It is not possible to prove any theory True. Only fundamentalists try to do that.
Science is not data. Evidence is not a proof. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
Science is not a principle.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

Fail again.

Nope. The theory of the null hypothesis in statistics

No such theory in statistical math.

Robert Wagner wrote:
instructs you the formulate the null hypothesis and then test it i order to form your theory.

Null hypothesis first.

Circular definition. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Troll fails again.

In inferential statistics, the null hypothesis is that two possibilities are the same. The null hypothesis is that the observed difference is due to chance alone. Using statistical tests, it is possible to calculate the likelihood that the null hypothesis is true.

Circular definition. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Repetition fallacy (chanting). Redefinition fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'statistical tests'.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Science is not a 'method' or procedure. A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. Science is not a 'research', business, or 'technology'. It is not logic. It is not mathematics. It does not use consensus. only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a debugging method. It is not a computer.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.

...deleted Mantras 5...17...1a...

No argument presented. Trolling.

So is your feeble response an indication of your limited IQ or of an equally limited vocabulary, or more likely both.

Into the Night is correct on all points. What point are you trying to make?

He isn't making any point. He's just trolling.

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.

Fail.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

Hypothesis first, theory afterwards.

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.
It is not possible to prove any theory True. Only fundamentalists try to do that.
Science is not data. Evidence is not a proof. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
Science is not a principle.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

Fail again.

Nope. The theory of the null hypothesis in statistics

No such theory in statistical math.

Robert Wagner wrote:
instructs you the formulate the null hypothesis and then test it i order to form your theory.

Null hypothesis first.

Circular definition. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Troll fails again.

In inferential statistics, the null hypothesis is that two possibilities are the same. The null hypothesis is that the observed difference is due to chance alone. Using statistical tests, it is possible to calculate the likelihood that the null hypothesis is true.

Circular definition. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Repetition fallacy (chanting). Redefinition fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'statistical tests'.

...deleted Mantra 17...

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Science is not a 'method' or procedure. A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. Science is not a 'research', business, or 'technology'. It is not logic. It is not mathematics. It does not use consensus. only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a debugging method. It is not a computer.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.

...deleted Mantras 5...17...1a...

No argument presented. Trolling.

So is your feeble response an indication of your limited IQ or of an equally limited vocabulary, or more likely both.

Into the Night is correct on all points. What point are you trying to make?

He isn't making any point. He's just trolling.

...deleted Mantra 1d...

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Science is not a 'method' or procedure. A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. Science is not a 'research', business, or 'technology'. It is not logic. It is not mathematics. It does not use consensus. only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a debugging method. It is not a computer.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.

...deleted Mantras 5...17...1a...

No argument presented. Trolling.

So is your feeble response an indication of your limited IQ or of an equally limited vocabulary, or more likely both.

Into the Night is correct on all points. What point are you trying to make?

He isn't making any point. He's just trolling.

...deleted Mantra 1d...

No argument presented. Trolling.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Science is not a 'method' or procedure. A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. Science is not a 'research', business, or 'technology'. It is not logic. It is not mathematics. It does not use consensus. only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a debugging method. It is not a computer.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.

...deleted Mantras 5...17...1a...

No argument presented. Trolling.

So is your feeble response an indication of your limited IQ or of an equally limited vocabulary, or more likely both.

Into the Night is correct on all points. What point are you trying to make?

He isn't making any point. He's just trolling.

...deleted Mantra 1d...

No argument presented. Trolling.

...deleted Mantra 1a...

IBdaMann wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:We have already established that you are the primary troll on the Danish site (KlimaDebat.dk). Are you trying to be the commensurate troll and cover all your bases?

Just trolling trolls, as I said.

Nope. You troll the entire board. Nobody escapes your spam.

You have not contributed intellectually on either site. You are a troll and only a troll. At least you admit to it.

Im a BM wrote:Another hint is how many thousands of posts has the troll excreted on the site.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:Another hint is how many thousands of posts has the troll excreted on the site.

In Troll Robert Wagner's case, one can notice the lack of any intellectual contribution. He exists only to harass those who don't believe as he does and he spams the board with phony charts and graphs, as though phony charts are supposed to put an end to all disbelief in Global Warming.

That's all he does.

Swan wrote:Says the troll who denies the last ice age and the holocaust as well

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the troll who denies the last ice age and the holocaust as well

I demand accountability for both Holocausts, whereas you only recognize one.

IBdaMann wrote:
Cross-posted from the Danish mirror site KlimaDebat.dk

___________

A troll is an intellectual coward with a debilitating fear of differing opinions.

Trolls immediately identify themselves by demanding censorship of anyone who expresses differing opinions. Of course they demand "moderators" instead of honestly requesting "censors". Trolls will arrive at an uncensored website and will immediately feel sickened by the independent, critical reasoning of others. Trolls will not attribute the problem to their cognitive deficiencies. They will instead blame those who think for themselves and who have different opinions.

The natural progression is that the trolls start complaining that the website is "dead". Any rational adult will see that the site is fine, but the trolls will insist that "moderators" are needed to prevent the differing opinions that "drive people away." This happens on all uncensored discussion pages. You can see the same thing happening regularly on the English site Climate-Debate. All those who complain about free-flowing ideas have none of their own and are envious of others who can think for themselves.

Why do trolls do this? Why don't they just post in a mindless collective of their choosing, one that has lots of censors to punish, censor and ban different views? The reason is that such websites are already dead. Trolls know that among non-thinking collectives their stupid opinions must be accepted and embraced. However, there is no satisfaction with that. Censors prevent any thinking or learning from occurring.

Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites. No one needs any trolls to declare that it is somehow "dead" or that any rational adults are somehow being "driven away".
.

Original Post

IBDaMann skrev:
En trold er en intellektuel kujon med en invaliderende frygt for forskellige meninger.

Trolde identificerer sig straks ved at kræve censur af enhver, der udtrykker forskellige meninger. Selvfølgelig kræver de "moderatorer" i stedet for ærligt at anmode om "censorer". Trolde vil ankomme til en ucensureret hjemmeside og vil straks føle sig syge af andres uafhængige, kritiske ræsonnement. Trolde vil ikke tilskrive problemet deres kognitive mangler. De vil i stedet give dem skylden, der tænker selv, og som har forskellige meninger.

Den naturlige progression er, at troldene begynder at brokke sig over, at hjemmesiden er "død". Enhver rationel voksen vil se, at siden er fin, men troldene vil insistere på, at "moderatorer" er nødvendige for at forhindre de forskellige meninger, der "driver folk væk." Dette sker på alle ucensurerede diskussionssider. Du kan se det samme ske jævnligt på den engelske side Climate-Debate. Alle dem, der klager over fritflydende ideer, har ingen af ​​deres egne og er misundelige på andre, der kan tænke selv.

Hvorfor gør trolde dette? Hvorfor poster de ikke bare i et åndssvagt kollektiv efter eget valg, et der har masser af censorer til at straffe, censurere og forbyde forskellige synspunkter? Årsagen er, at sådanne hjemmesider allerede er døde. Trolde ved, at blandt ikke-tænkende kollektiver skal deres dumme meninger accepteres og omfavnes. Det er der dog ingen tilfredshed med. Censorer forhindrer enhver tænkning eller læring i at forekomme.

Klimadebat.dk har det fint. Det er en af ​​internettets bedste debatsider. Ingen behøver nogen trolde for at erklære, at den på en eller anden måde er "død", eller at nogen rationelle voksne på en eller anden måde bliver "drevet væk".
.

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:We have already established that you are the primary troll on the Danish site (KlimaDebat.dk). Are you trying to be the commensurate troll and cover all your bases?

Just trolling trolls, as I said.

Nope. You troll the entire board. Nobody escapes your spam.

You have not contributed intellectually on either site. You are a troll and only a troll. At least you admit to it.

Only trolling trolls like you, troll.

And whats with the 'we' have established, another indicator of a Marxist by your own definition.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Redefinition fallacy (plurality<->Marxism).
No argument presented. Trolling.

No inversion fallacy, just using the same definition. Another troll?

Inversion fallacy. Discard of logic. Lie. Buzzword fallacy. No argument presented. Trolling.

Troll BS detected. Initiating Ogre protocol.

Discard of logic. Inversion fallacy.

Repetitive BS. Troll confirmed.

Inversion fallacy. Discard of logic. Trolling.

Trolling the trolls.