I'm all for reasonable, cogent and lucid debate. But when the...

I'm all for reasonable, cogent and lucid debate.

But when the modus operandi of one of the participants in that debate puts up material that he/she doesn't even understand (didn't even read in some demonstrated instances) and worse, which in some cases actually contradicts his/her own argument, then it's tantamount to trolling... if not, then certainly a far cry from anything reasonable, cogent and lucid.

Merely consuming all the oxygen in the debate with a bombardment of an assortment of "papers", irrespective of how relevant to the debate (or indeed, how accurate they are) is a tactic often encountered.

But this is not an isolated case; I have often found that happens when opinions come preconceived based on some kind of ideology.

This, from a poster on another thread this morning, made me think of the farcical logic on display from our mutual co-respondent:

"Someone may feel themself to be extremely ethical and righteous (just like anyone with religious certainty can have that conviction) - but science doesn't work in that subjective way. Science works by setting aside the subjective certainty that one is correct - it has to be beyond subjective. It has to be logical and reproducable or it probably isn't science."

.