The True Nature of an Internet Troll – Facts So Romantic

Although the phrase “to troll” only recently entered the mainstream lexicon-partially thanks to the rise in popularity of online discussion forums like 4chan and Reddit, as well as massive multiplayer online games-trolling dates back to chatrooms in the ’80s. Back then, “trolls” referred to online instigators of disparaging and, essentially, pointless arguments, or “flamewars.” Nowadays, however, trolling has evolved into a catch-all term, ranging from inflammatory YouTube comments and tweets all the way to targeted and sustained harassment (as well as jail time for the aggressors).

Trolling is also on the rise. In 2014, over 1,200 people were found guilty under Section 127 of the United Kingdom’s Communications Act 2003, which makes it a crime to send, “by means of a public electronic communications network,” any message or material that is “grossly offensive or of an indecnt, obscene or menacing character.” There were a mere 143 convictions under the law in 2004.

One possible explanation for the growth of trolling is the “online disinhibition effect,” which involves a lessening of social restraints due to factors like online anonymity and invisibility, according to clinical psychologist John Suler. It’s also true that that we are spending more time…

Read More…

This Simple Philosophical Puzzle Shows How Difficult It Is to Know Something – Facts So Romantic

In the 1960s, the American philosopher Edmund Gettier devised a thought experiment that has become known as a “Gettier case.” It shows that something’s “off” about the way we understand knowledge. This ordeal is called the “Gettier problem,” and 50 years later, philosophers are still arguing about it. Jennifer Nagel, a philosopher of mind at the University of Toronto, sums up its appeal. “The resilience of the Gettier problem,” she says, “suggests that it is difficult (if not impossible) to develop any explicit reductive theory of knowledge.”  

What is knowledge? Well, thinkers for thousands of years had more or less taken one definition for granted: Knowledge is “justified true belief.” The reasoning seemed solid: Just believing something that happens to be true doesn’t necessarily make it knowledge. If your friend says to you that she knows what you ate last night (say it’s veggie pizza), and happens to be right after guessing, that doesn’t mean she knew. That was just a lucky guess-a mere true belief. Your friend would know, though, if she said veggie pizza because she saw you eat it-that’s the “justification” part. Your friend, in that case, would have good reason to believe you ate it.…

Read More…