[mduncs]

> People who attempt to back up their intuitive knowledge with science seem to be the opposite of trolls.

Consider the difference between seeing if your intuitions reflect science, and trying to justify your intuitions with science.

If you go looking for information that matches parts of your internal biases, can you reasonably say you would change your mind if you found information that conflicted your view? What if ten articles out of twenty reflected your view? What if one article out of twenty reflected your view? I think you should reread the portion of their comment about using science as a cudgel to see why it can be bad to consider intuition the guiding principle of research.

[malvosenior]

I think part of healthy debate (and its true value) is that the person with opposing views would also present science and data to back up their argument. Instead what we get is an instant fall back to "trolls, arguing in bad faith...". If you have data or research that backs up your position, you definitely should post it and compare it to any other data that comes from the opposing view.

And yes, I would change my mind if I was presented with credible evidence.