1.) - Trippy, you appear to be "...leaving out relevant and known information to give a false impression." - This is what I actually Posted - the "relevant and known information" - in my Post #32 : And the following from my Post # 34 : Trippy, I respectfully refer you to : Trippy, my impetus for registering as a Member on SciForums was only to engage in Open, Honest, Earnest and Intelligent Discussions. I have no impetus to "provide" any "argument".
I can only comment on the "...we are changing our minds all the time..." and the "...me to change my mind..." parts of your Post #36 : origin, I refer you to these relevant statements from my Post #34 : origin, I cannot comment on any of the other content in your Post #36.
What is problematical is the weird interpretation some people seem to put on things. Someone says something, and the next minute some new amazing interpretation is put on it. Sometimes I just shake my head in disbelief.
Kittamaru, I cannot concur with your assessment of what an "especially intelligent conversation" is. An example : when a person is only conversing in an attempt at "changing someone" else's "mind", an intelligent person may just possibly and correctly perceive that as "Proselytizing".
Kittamaru, If the "objective of" any member of "that discussion is to at least attempt to sway the other side" - would that not be more correctly referred to as an "Argument", or again, an example of "Proselytizing"?
On the one hand DMOE, if you claim to have never tried to change my mind you have no grounds for making a meaningful conclusion. If you're relying on evidence from my interactions with others clearly your sample is biased. On the other hand, how can you claim to have not tried to change my mind when trying to change my mind forms the core of the interaction where you try and convince me that a particular post from paddoboy is trolling.
a good example would be discussing preliminary research results. this discussion would mainly be about the accuracy of the data and methods of obtaining said data, to flesh out any flaws (or try to). i doubt if there would be any kind of full blown debate.
If you have a problem, don't take science in your own hands .. you take 'em to Science Court. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081916/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124255/ http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/ThePeoplesCourt
Has any of what is described in the following, taken place in the previous 50 Posts in this Thread? Just wondering?