Socrates: A Troll?

[eyesOpened]

Socrates asked "outrageous" questions to "bait people to answer". He "delighted in sowing discord". He "inspired flaming rhetoric" and "purposely provoked and pulled people into flaming discussion."

 

He "tried to make us believe that he was a genuine skeptic with no hidden agenda," and he was "divisive and argumentative… searching for the truth". He "provoked people to insult him," and he was "an expert in reusing the same words of his opponents and in turning [their words] against them." He may have "had an agenda."

 

Was he a troll?

 

-----------

All quotations are from http://curezone.com/forums/troll.asp.

Edited September 11, 2012 by eyesOpened

[Phi for All]

I didn't know the man personally, but if he rejected rational arguments and clear, supportive evidence without putting forth any of his own in an attempt to sow discord without furthering a discussion, then yes, he was most likely a troll.

[eyesOpened]

Insofar as he practiced the Socratic method purely, I believe he:

• didn't reject any arguments (he only asked questions);
• didn't put forth any evidence or arguments.

We can only guess at his intentions, but so is the case in any troll-trial.

 

 

[Phi for All]

We can only guess at his intentions, but so is the case in any troll-trial.

This is not completely true. At least here, we have written evidence when someone is trolling. It's usually quite clear when someone is avoiding the evidence that supports the position of another and failing to provide his own, and instead puts forth inflammatory and provocative hand-waiving in order to detract from a weak argument. While we may guess whether the trolling was intended as such from the outset or not, the results are still the same. Trolling is often just a version of the red-herring fallacy, consciously or unconsciously trying to mislead the reader from a poorly supported position.

[eyesOpened]

This is not completely true. At least here, we have written evidence when someone is trolling. It's usually quite clear when someone is avoiding the evidence that supports the position of another and failing to provide his own, and instead puts forth inflammatory and provocative hand-waiving in order to detract from a weak argument. While we may guess whether the trolling was intended as such from the outset or not, the results are still the same. Trolling is often just a version of the red-herring fallacy, consciously or unconsciously trying to mislead the reader from a poorly supported position.

If "failing to provide evidence" is trolling, then anyone practicing the Socratic method is a troll. Moreover, if "failing to provide evidence" is trolling, then anyone who comes to this forum to ask a question is a troll, since asking questions doesn't entail providing evidence.

 

In cases where a person puts forth no "inflammatory and provocative hand-waiving", what procedure do you use to determine whether he's "avoiding the evidence that supports the position of another"?

[John Cuthber]

The teacher /student relationship is different from that between people on a discussion board so the question is a bit meaningless.

It's like asking if a rose is a weed: it depends if you find it in a rose garden or a cabbage field.

 

Trolling is a term defined in respect of web communities. Socrates wasn't on the web so he wasn't a troll. (Unless he hid under a bridge and ate billy goats)

Edited September 11, 2012 by John Cuthber

[eyesOpened]

The teacher /student relationship is different from that between people on a discussion board so the question is a bit meaningless.

It's like asking if a rose is a weed: it depends if you find it in a rose garden or a cabbage field.

 

Trolling is a term defined in respect of web communities. Socrates wasn't on the web so he wasn't a troll. (Unless he hid under a bridge and ate billy goats)

So if Socrates travelled through time to the present to ask a question on the "Homework Help" (http://www.sciencefo...-homework-help/) forum, and he "failed to provide evidence" (expectable since he's just asking a question on a Homework-Help forum), would he be a troll.

Edited September 11, 2012 by eyesOpened

[Phi for All]

So if Socrates travelled through time to the present to ask a question on the "Homework Help" (http://www.sciencefo...-homework-help/) forum, and he "failed to provide evidence" (expectable since he's just asking a question on a Homework-Help forum), would he be a troll.

The homework help section is not a standard discussion area, so your question is not meaniongful.

 

It's clear you have an agenda regarding being called a troll at another forum, and now you're bringing your grievances here. It's inconsistent with our purpose to discuss anything in such a loaded and dishonest manner, when it's clear you have no intention of learning anything from the questions you're asking and the answers you're not listening to.

[eyesOpened]

So much is clear to you, just like the guys who got angry at Socrates. I won't respond to your statements about me, since they are off topic, and on this "General Philosophy" forum I do not care about the discussion on the "Genetics" forum. Why don't you forget about the discussion on that other forum altogether? Any mention of it will be seen as off-topic in this thread. Any mention of me personally will also be seen as off topic in this thread. If you wish to discuss me, why not do so in another thread? This thread is not a place to finish a fight from somewhere else.

 

The homework help section is not a standard discussion area, so your question is not meaniongful.

But my question is not about "a standard discussion area".... it's about the "Homework Help" forum. That's clear (despite your "inflammatory and provocative hand-waiving").

Edited September 11, 2012 by eyesOpened

[Greg H.]

Socrates was not a troll, and his Socratic method was (IIRC) an answer to the Sophists of his time who often used cleverly ambiguous arguments to win their debates. He was trying to get people to start thinking critically about their opponents arguments - it's a shame he isn't alive now, maybe we'd have fewer sheep come election day.

 

But my question is not about "a standard discussion area".... it's about the "Homework Help" forum. That's clear, unless you are responding to internal stimuli. (?)

 

If he came to the forum (regardless of the section) and asked a direct question earnestly seeking information, then of course he's not a troll. If however, he (or anyone) came to any section of the forum and made grandiose claims that run against the grain of modern science while providing no supporting evidence, failing to address counterclaims and rebuttals by others, and in general making an ass of himself, then yes, he's a troll (or stupid - sometimes it's hard to tell the difference).

[Iota]

So he ticks all of the above, BUT did he live in his mother's basement?

Edited September 11, 2012 by Iota

[eyesOpened]

If he came to the forum (regardless of the section) and asked a direct question earnestly seeking information, then of course he's not a troll....

I am listening to your answers and learning, but if he came and asked a direct question, and he insisted he was being earnest, what procedure could we use to determine whether he was in fact being earnest, or whether he really "had no intention of" "listening to the answers" and "learning anything from them"?

 

...He was trying to get people to start thinking critically about their opponents arguments....

How do you know what he was really trying to do?

[MattyG]

I am listening to your answers and learning, but if he came and asked a direct question, and he insisted he was being earnest, what procedure could we use to determine whether he was in fact being earnest, or whether he really "had no intention of" "listening to the answers" and "learning anything from them"?

 

 

How do you know what he was really trying to do?

 

Well, if he chose specifically to ignore evidence, asked people to prove the non-existence of something, edited his evidence in a manner to support his claims, stated that people had said the opposite of what they had said, constantly misunderstoods the context of people's statements (either intentionally or not), or stated that he failed to see the relevance of entirely relevant comments, then chances are he was a troll. Additionally, Socrates would generally be asking people to question ethical questions, not questions of science. Subjective beliefs as opposed to objective beliefs. If one attempts to dispute someone's scientific claims without having evidence of their own, then they are absolutely a troll.

Edited September 11, 2012 by MattyG

[LaurieAG]

I don't think Socrates was a troll.

 

But if you ever did manage to classify him as a troll you would also have to consider him as Plato's sock puppet.

[John Cuthber]

So if Socrates travelled through time to the present to ask a question on the "Homework Help" (http://www.sciencefo...-homework-help/) forum, and he "failed to provide evidence" (expectable since he's just asking a question on a Homework-Help forum), would he be a troll.

If he turned up here and now and started trolling, he would be a troll.

[MattyG]

So much is clear to you, just like the guys who got angry at Socrates. I won't respond to your statements about me, since they are off topic, and on this "General Philosophy" forum I do not care about the discussion on the "Genetics" forum. Why don't you forget about the discussion on that other forum altogether? Any mention of it will be seen as off-topic in this thread. Any mention of me personally will also be seen as off topic in this thread. If you wish to discuss me, why not do so in another thread? This thread is not a place to finish a fight from somewhere else.

 

 

I don't think Socrates was a troll.

 

But if you ever did manage to classify him as a troll you would also have to consider him as Plato's sock puppet.

 

It doesn't look like OP actually wants to know whether or not Socrates would be a troll. He wants people to confirm his opinion that he is like Socrates.

 

But yeah, the Plato's sock puppet analogy is perfect for any conversation actually about Socrates. It's important to understand that the only Socrates we really know about is essentially just a character.

[eyesOpened]

Socrates might have done some gay stuff, but nothing as gay as following me from website to website, thread to thread, to lavish attention on me.

[MattyG]

Socrates might have done some gay stuff, but nothing as gay as following me from website to website, thread to thread, to lavish attention on me.

 

Actually, there's no actual evidence to assert that Socrates was at all homosexual. In fact, he was married and had children. However, on the topic of him being a troll or not, one would assume that if he were to go around peppering his discussions with homophobic remarks and accusations, he would, in fact, be classified as a troll.

 

Question to the moderators: Are homophobic remarks and accusations allowed on this forum?

[eyesOpened]

Who said anything against homosexuality, or even against homosexuals who stalk guys from website to website, thread to thread? Stop responding to internal stimuli, and re-read what I actually typed?

[MattyG]

Who said anything against homosexuality, or even against homosexuals who stalk guys from website to website, thread to thread? Stop responding to internal stimuli, and re-read what I actually typed?

 

I'm sorry, but I think you should take your own advice and re-read what I actually typed. I discussed the historical Socrates and how there was no evidence that he practiced homosexuality, despite your claims that he did "gay stuff." I then discussed the topic of this thread, describing how slanderous accusations of homosexuality in order to insult, offend, or discredit an opponent are a trademark of trolling, and we would in fact be inclined to label Socrates as such, had he stooped to such immature methods of discourse.

 

Then out of personal interest I voiced a question to the moderators about forum rules. I never asserted that anyone on this thread or anywhere else had "said anything against homosexuality." Except the trolls, among whom we do not find Socrates.

Edited September 12, 2012 by MattyG

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

MattyG,

If you think something is against our rules, please use our report feature to alert staff.

!

Moderator Note

eyesOpened,

As it happens, making slurs or derogatory remarks against a group or groups of people is against our rules and the use of such remarks as 'gay' very much falls into this when used in a negative way as you have used them. So it stops now, as does the off topic banter (MattyG, that goes for you too).

I would also ask you both to please stop dragging your issues from other forums into this one.

Please do not respond to either of these mod notes in the thread. If you wish to discuss things further, please PM staff or utilise the report feature, on the bottom left of each post.

[swansont]

Socrates might have done some gay stuff, but nothing as gay as following me from website to website, thread to thread, to lavish attention on me.

!

Moderator Note

I, too, am having a hard time coming up with an interpretation of this that doesn't violate our rule on slurs or prejudice.

 

Just so you know that it's not just one mod picking on you. This had better end, now.

[offended]

I happen to be gay and a stalker, and the only thing offensive here is the assumption that calling someone a "gay stalker" is somehow "negative" or "derogatory", or a "slur", or a manifestation of "prejudice". That assumption implies the bigoted notion that something is wrong with being a gay stalker.

Edited September 12, 2012 by offended

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Thread Closed pending moderator review.