Climate Change - Be careful or you might learn something

duncan61 wrote:
So she was hungry and you convinced her to plant more trees for some one else. It used to be called slavery

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
So she was hungry and you convinced her to plant more trees for some one else. It used to be called slavery

It still is.

duncan61 wrote:
Why is the government funding non government organizations . Its what NGO stands for idiot

Into the Night wrote:Here a paradox is being built.

Into the Night wrote:Despite you considering that purely incidental, you support this 'incidental' as you describe the Church of Karl Marx and associate it with the Church of Global Warming.

Into the Night wrote:This is incorrect. You gave a non-sequitur fallacy

Into the Night wrote: as an example to demonstrate the 'assumption', or attempt to prove a circular argument True, which is the circular argument fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:These are not proofs. These are arguments stemming from the initial argument that Christ and God exist, and they are you they say they are.

Into the Night wrote:The belief in Gods plan, or how Jesus Christ fits in to support this plan are argument that stem from the initial circular argument.

Into the Night wrote:They are not proofs. Just arguments.

Into the Night wrote:Yes you can. You are describing the Theory of Creation, a nonscientific theory. The Theory of Creation states that life on Earth arrived through the action of some kind of intelligence. It does not require that intelligence to be any god or gods. Christians believe it to be God.

Into the Night wrote:A nonscientific theory is not falsifiable (therefore not science).

Into the Night wrote:The Theory of Creation is not science (it does have some problems, though, particularly around the Theory of the Big Bang, another nonscientific theory).

Into the Night wrote: Similarly, the Theory of Abiogenesis, which states that life arrived on Earth through random unspecified events, is also a nonscientific theory. It too can be neither proved True or False.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:They *BEG* for the scientific method to brought in to thoroughly scrutinize every word.

And this is where it all falls down, of course.

Into the Night wrote:Science is not scrutinizing every word. Yes, it must have every word defined, but it is the falsifiable theory that is important to science, not any particular method or procedure,

Into the Night wrote:Just as in any equation in mathematics, you have to be able to define every variable and what it means in any equation (even if it just means 'X' is the horizontal axis of a Cartesian coordinate system, and Y is the vertical axis).

Into the Night wrote:Every law of science must have it's variables clearly defined. This, of course, is something that the Church of Global Warming, for example, cannot do. They can't even come up with an equation describing 'global warming', or the so-called 'causes' for it. It is because they can't define 'global warming' (or 'climate change') itself.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:They bend over backwards to render their WACKY unfalsifiable beliefs FALSE.

Uh...True, actually. They try to render their wacky beliefs True.

Into the Night wrote:Seal over is a perfect example of numerous buzzwords used to try to impress people with his 'knowledge', and even tries to claim a title to further puff himself up.

Into the Night wrote:Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. It now only exists as a paradox.

Into the Night wrote:I really don't blame you. Oddly enough, Christians and Jews have the same problem in reverse.

Into the Night wrote:No. Despite the irritation of such people, and the misery they cause, Earth itself has existed long before us and will exist long after us.

Into the Night wrote:It will still be here long after anything we as Man worry about.

Into the Night wrote:While driven by religion, it is also arrogance to think Man has any power of this kind.

Into the Night wrote:I've always been amused by this inconsistency [of the Great Flood / Catastrophic Global Warming equivalence] and happily point it out to Democrats that try it.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Here a paradox is being built.

Allow me to clarify.

1. There are the things that have purposes
2. There are scammers and other bad people in general who misues things to scam people.

Religion has a purpose for those who seek religion. You would be a good example. Your religion has a purpose and it, in turn, gives you purpose ... and you saw your religion and it was good.

Others seeking religion for its purpose fell upon some Marxists who sought only to enslave them. Marxists produced a religion that seemingly satisfies the need of those who seek religion. They fall into the religion believing that it is helping them make better decisions about how to live their lives, yet the decisions that follow from that religion are not in their best interest and are not in the best interests of society.

I appreciate the opportunity to emphasize that point.

Into the Night wrote:Despite you considering that purely incidental, you support this 'incidental' as you describe the Church of Karl Marx and associate it with the Church of Global Warming.

It's a question of dependent variables.

Marxists seek to enslave others. The religion(s) they produce will be designed for that purpose. Hence, the underlying doctrine will be "human activity must be rigidly controlled." One of the few ways to get people to agree to that sort of nonsense is for them to accept it as a Trojan horse in the religion they profess. Get a congregation to advocate for strictly controlled human behavior and you have advocates for tyranny ... for your tyranny.

This leaves the doctrine of "The earth is getting warmer" as doctrine (an assumption) that exists to support a higher doctrine that CO2 has magical superpowers, which supports the higher doctrine that human activity is driving up the levels of atmospheric CO2, which supports the primary doctrine of "human activity must be controlled."

Obviously, religion being what it is, i.e. assumptions not being questioned, if the idea that the earth's average temperature is increasing is not questioned, and the idea that CO2 has magickal superpowers is not questioned, then you have people making F'd-up decisions that are not in their interests ... all the while believing, to a religious extent, that they are saving the planet.

So yes, the primary Marxist doctrine is that human activity must be controlled. This is why it always leads to oligarchy and tyranny, not to freedom and personal liberties.

Into the Night wrote:This is incorrect. You gave a non-sequitur fallacy

No, I did not. I gave an example of a theorem that was only one intuitive step removed from one of the assumptions. Let me restate it:

* I assume Into the Night likes all ice cream

[ insert twenty-million non-contradictory statements of your choosing]

* Conclusion: Into the Night likes vanilla ice cream.

This is a valid proof. It is also a trivial proof. You can check with any math professor.

You and I do not stand in disagreement. I just use different terms. The proof above is not a fallacy, it is trivial. If my trivial proof happens to concern my religious belief, if my theorem is one intuitive step from one of my assumptions then my "proof" is not a fallacy, it is a valid argument.

You would be correct in any mathematical/logical context if you were to instead refer to such arguments as "not sound arguments" instead of fallacies because 1) they are not fallacies if they are actually valid arguments, as trivial as they might be, and 2) to be a sound argument, it must be shown that all statements of the theorem are true. It is a fallacy to declare an argument as a "fact" and to thus attempt to prove something TRUE by virtue of having declared such a fact. If a statement in an argument/theorem cannot be shown to be TRUE then the argument is not sound, even if it is valid.

Recap: Providing a proof that a religion is true is not a fallacy, it is simply not a sound argument, unless it includes FALSE statements as Marxist religions insist on including, or includes other fallacies, in which case it becomes FALSE.

You may not realize this but if you assume that the Christian God exists, and you argue that the Christian God exists because the Christian God exists, that is a valid argument ... and it is not a sound argument. You might not like the idea of your claim that the Christian God exists being labelled "unsound" but I didn't make up the terminology; it has yet to be shown that the statement "the Christian God exists" is TRUE. Nonetheless, it is a valid argument; the conclusion follows from the statement. It is also trivial. You might not like the label "trivial" but the word refers to the rigor of the logic involved, not to the conclusion itself.

Into the Night wrote: as an example to demonstrate the 'assumption', or attempt to prove a circular argument True, which is the circular argument fallacy.

Being "circular" does not necessarily impart the value of FALSE, except in definitions. Circular definitions are normally discarded.

Circular arguments often result from biconditionals. For example, does pressure increase because the temperature increases or does the temperature increase because the pressure increases? ANSWER: Both, it's a biconditional.

We don't consider the Ideal Gas Law to be FALSE. The multivariate interdependencies create biconitionals and we recognize that. That is allowed.

A problem arises when one aspect of the argued biconditional is not shown to be TRUE. The Ideal Gas Law does not suffer from this problem because it is falsifiable and has passed the scrutiny of the scientific method. However, the concept of "feedbacks" of the Global Warming cult supposedly operate under a biconditional that has not been shown to be TRUE. Normally such fabricated biconditionals defy the second law of thermodynamics and are readily discovered to be FALSE.

Recap: Being circular, in and of itself, does not garner the truth value of FALSE. Biconditionals are examples of valid, but apparently circular, arguments. When one of the conditions is shown to be FALSE, the biconditional is then considered FALSE.

Into the Night wrote:These are not proofs. These are arguments stemming from the initial argument that Christ and God exist, and they are you they say they are.

I use mathematics terminology. They are proofs. They are lists of statements each with a conclusion that follows using logic.

If you have a logical conclusion, you have a proof, which is equivalent to a valid argument. At this point the mathematician determines whether the statements that led to the conclusion are themselves TRUE. If they are, the argument is considered SOUND. If the truth value of one or more of the statements cannot be verified, the argument is considered "unsound" or "not sound."

NOTE: any statements in the argument that are not used in deriving the conclusion are noted as such and are removed, within the context of that argument only. This principal carries over into science and is the basis for the principal of Occam's Razor. In software engineering, this principal is incorporated into IDEs (interactive development environments) which highlight code and/or variables that is/are not used in the execution of the program.

Into the Night wrote:The belief in Gods plan, or how Jesus Christ fits in to support this plan are argument that stem from the initial circular argument.

Yes, they stem from the initial assumption, rendering the conclusion trivial.

Into the Night wrote:They are not proofs. Just arguments.

They are proofs, that are unsound proofs, thus precluding them from being accepted as facts by certain others, thus relegating them to the status of "arguments."

Into the Night wrote:Yes you can. You are describing the Theory of Creation, a nonscientific theory. The Theory of Creation states that life on Earth arrived through the action of some kind of intelligence. It does not require that intelligence to be any god or gods. Christians believe it to be God.

I understand, but back up a step.

Let this be the theorem:

* Assumption: The domain of consideration is all of CREATION
* Conclusion: Creation had a creator.

... then no one wearing a mathematicians cap will challenge the validity of that argument. If the assumed domain is "CREATION" then the mathematician will stamp the proof as valid and head to lunch.

Of course, in his notes, the mathematical will note that the proof is not sound, that CREATION has not been defined, that the proof is trivial ... but that it cannot be disputed that "a creator" follows from CREATION. It is a valid proof ...

... and it is not a fallacy.

You also referred to this proof as non-scientific. Big deal. It is also non-cinematic, non-profit, non-partisan, nonchalant, non-corrosive, non-flammable, non-Hodgekins, non-fungible and non-alcoholic. None of that alters the validity or lack thereof, of any argument.

Into the Night wrote:A nonscientific theory is not falsifiable (therefore not science).

You have that backwards. An unfalsifiable theory/model is not science, but there is nothing preventing you from from creating a falsifiable theory/model of something that does not predict nature.

Into the Night wrote:The Theory of Creation is not science (it does have some problems, though, particularly around the Theory of the Big Bang, another nonscientific theory).

The Theory of Creation is not science, but it doesn't have any problems as far as I can see. If I put on my mathematicians cap, I see an assumption of an omnipotent creator and an assertion that this omnipotent creator created Creation. Looks perfectly valid to me. As an atheist, I would probably note that the assumption has not been shown to be TRUE so the argument is not sound and therefore cannot be used as a falsifiable model and cannot be tested.

Into the Night wrote: Similarly, the Theory of Abiogenesis, which states that life arrived on Earth through random unspecified events, is also a nonscientific theory. It too can be neither proved True or False.

Correct. Abiogenesis, as well as any speculation of the past, cannot be verified. As such, we cannot ascertain the truth value of the statements. Therefore the argument, while valid, is not sound, thus it cannot be considered a falsifiable model. Therefore it cannot be science.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:They *BEG* for the scientific method to brought in to thoroughly scrutinize every word.

And this is where it all falls down, of course.

... and this is what is so sad. I'm sure people wonder how I can validly characterize warmizombies as mindless purveyors of WACKY dogma they are ordered to regurgitate by their slavemasters. Isn't that a bit extreme?

Nope. Every one of the countless times I have encountered a warmizombie, he has been a totally scientifically illiterate moron who presumed to be an science expert. Every single time. Let me emphasize that: a moron who thinks he's a fuqqing genius. This is what the religion produces. Total fuqqing idiots.

I hope seal over is reading this. I'm sure he is wondering how it is that others know right off the bat that he is merely copy-pasting and that he is as stupid as the schytt on my shoe. @seal over: The answer is that you won't recognize the expertise of others. There do exist others who know so much more than you in many areas of science and math and logic. Your summary dismissal of correction and your arrogant presumption of omniscience ... give you away and turn others away.

There are no others coming to read your "library." You are on your own. You are a troll. You are a moron.

@Into the Night: I apologize for the tangent.

Into the Night wrote:Science is not scrutinizing every word. Yes, it must have every word defined, but it is the falsifiable theory that is important to science, not any particular method or procedure,

Agreed. The concept is what is important. We'll worry about the wording, and then the formal specification (math), once we get the concept down. First, we need to make sure our concept is internally consistent. Then we'll work on external consistency. Hey, is it too late to patent the scientific method?

Into the Night wrote:Just as in any equation in mathematics, you have to be able to define every variable and what it means in any equation (even if it just means 'X' is the horizontal axis of a Cartesian coordinate system, and Y is the vertical axis).

This is why object-oriented programming is so apropos for this. I'm telling you, math and chemistry notation should be replaced with Java ... except then Oracle would own science.

Into the Night wrote:Every law of science must have it's variables clearly defined. This, of course, is something that the Church of Global Warming, for example, cannot do. They can't even come up with an equation describing 'global warming', or the so-called 'causes' for it. It is because they can't define 'global warming' (or 'climate change') itself.

Imagine asking a Christian for an equation of Christianity or for Salvation. Of course, I'm trying to imagine a Christian that declares Christianity to be thettled thienth. Yes, yes, I know personally quite a few Christians that assure me that "all the evidence points to" the existence of God and that "all science" supports Creation" ... yes, yes, I get it ... but even they will eventually admit that this is their faith/belief. There is no pretense that there is science to be had, even if there are a few opening sentences that seek to bathe in a temporary "I've got science" fantasy. I'm not here to play thought police enforcing adherence to the scientific method.

I have yet to have any Christian pretend that Christianity is science. Yes, virtually all profess that their faith is the truth, the light and the way, but that is not claiming that it is science. Marxists, on the other hand, are the exact opposite. They have been enslaved.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:They bend over backwards to render their WACKY unfalsifiable beliefs FALSE.

Uh...True, actually. They try to render their wacky beliefs True.

Right. They are scientifically illiterate and they confuse science with religion. They claim that their religious dogma, the dogma they believe to be science, has been confirmed to be TRUE and is thus thettled thienth. It's at this point I feel like a Mike Tyson about to unload on a parapalegic toddler. It's sad. How I pity seal over. He has no idea.

Into the Night wrote:Seal over is a perfect example of numerous buzzwords used to try to impress people with his 'knowledge', and even tries to claim a title to further puff himself up.

Rhetorical Question: What do you get when you combine bluffing with virtue signalling?

Have you noticed the sheer quantity of spam that seal over has pumped in?

Into the Night wrote:Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. It now only exists as a paradox.

I know you say that ... but it was never science; it has never been falsified in the same way that Christianity has never been falsified. No speculation of the past can ever be falsifiable. Only falsifiable theories can be shown to be false

As far as the Origin of Species goes, you should read it. It's quite exceptional and is absolutely non-threatening to Christians, despite what you might have been told. It's on Politiplex and available to the public.

Remember: Darwin was a Christian. He got hammered merely for writing about what he did on his summer vacation.

Into the Night wrote:I really don't blame you. Oddly enough, Christians and Jews have the same problem in reverse.

Of course. This brings me full circle. I recognize the HATE warmizombies and Marxists in general have for Christians and it motivates me to jump in and "get the six" of whichever Christian is being pummeled. I don't expect most Christians to fully understand with what they are dealing and I usually find that I just can't let it slide. I don't presume that anybody needs my help but I lend it nonetheless as a courtesy. If I can show just one Christian exactly how totally stupid warmizombies are, it's totally worth it. Of course, if I can show them all, well, that's a bonus.

Into the Night wrote:No. Despite the irritation of such people, and the misery they cause, Earth itself has existed long before us and will exist long after us.

... but you have taken your eye off the target. You have allowed the Marxist magicians to draw your gaze towards "the earth" while getting you to erase from your attention the Marxist dogma in question. Marxists definitely NEED to control human activity. That is the NEED in question. That translates into a NEED to save the planet. It does not matter whether the planet needs saving; Marxists nonetheless NEED to save the planet because they NEED to control human activity.

Yes, I get it. The planet does not need to be saved. Totally granted.

"NEED" is a human concept and expressed in different ways in different doctrines.

Once you start talking about whether something is needed, you are necessarily talking about some human's point of view. Inanimate objects don't have needs.

Into the Night wrote:It will still be here long after anything we as Man worry about.

Yep. You know that's not the point. Control of human activity is the point. Think facemasks.

Into the Night wrote:While driven by religion, it is also arrogance to think Man has any power of this kind.

You don't have to convince me, but there are no limits to any religious doctrine. You might have heard mention that it is arrogance to assert that Noah could have somehow gathered two of each species and fit them all into an ark of the given cubic cubits. I say look beyond the nuts-and-bolts and see the message. If you tell me that God wanted to cleanse the world (in the past) ... and thus did so, great. I don't see any harm in that. If, on the other hand, the message is "believe in physics violations, pay much more in taxes, remain incarcerated in my basement for the safety of all and I am responsible for everything bad in the world" then the nuts-and-bolts are moot. I don't want anything to do with that crap.

Into the Night wrote:I've always been amused by this inconsistency [of the Great Flood / Catastrophic Global Warming equivalence] and happily point it out to Democrats that try it.

If I have not yet mentioned that I am an atheist, I'll remind any Marxists/Leftists/No-Gods that God left us rainbows as a sign that there will never again be any sea level rise or increase in extreme weather events.

I don't know why there aren't more Christians who do the same.

.

sealover wrote:1995. Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter. Nature. 377:227-229.

Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine Litter THE importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition is only beginning to be appreciated

Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine LitterHere we report that the polyphenol concentration of decomposing Pinus muricata litter controls the proportion of nitrogen released in dissolved organic forms relative to mineral forms (NH+4 + NO-3).

Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine LitterWe have previously shown that concentrations of polyphenols in P. muricata foliage vary along an extreme soil acidity/ fertility gradient. Apparently, this feedback to soil conditions controls the dominant form in which litter nitrogen is mobilized, facilitating nitrogen recovery through pine-mycorrhizal associations, minimizing nitrogen availability to competing organisms, and attenuating nitrogen losses from leaching and denitrification.

Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine LitterPolyphenol control of nitrogen dynamics helps explain the convergent evolution of tannin-rich plant communities on highly leached soils.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:1995. Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter. Nature. 377:227-229.

I'll take you on your word that the article is worth discussing and I'll be happy to discuss it with you, from an honest, straightforward, science perspective.

Please attach the article here in this thread or email it to me at IBDaMann@yahoo.com

At the moment, all I have is the abstract. I will give you an initial critique from that.

Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine Litter THE importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition is only beginning to be appreciated

I don't mean to be rude, but this sentence expresses the thought that will first enter the reader's head, i.e. that nobody cares about the importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition. Read the sentence again and you'll see what I mean.

This would have been an excellent place to write a thesis statement specifying clearly the importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition ... and why anyone would wish to read further.

Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine LitterHere we report that the polyphenol concentration of decomposing Pinus muricata litter controls the proportion of nitrogen released in dissolved organic forms relative to mineral forms (NH+4 + NO-3).

OK, the reader now understands what he is about to read, i.e. that the polyphenol concentration of decomposing Pinus muricata litter controls the proportion of nitrogen released in dissolved organic forms relative to mineral forms (NH+4 + NO-3). Don't you think you should have already explained why this is important? Why is the proportion of nitrogen released in dissolved organic forms of any concern?

So I need to ask, are you trying to link this Climate Change? I'm betting that you weren't because that wasn't really much of a thing back in 1995. I hate to ask but what is your point? What is the conclusion of this paper? What is the thesis statement? This is supposed to be prominently on display in the abstract.

Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine LitterWe have previously shown that concentrations of polyphenols in P. muricata foliage vary along an extreme soil acidity/ fertility gradient. Apparently, this feedback to soil conditions controls the dominant form in which litter nitrogen is mobilized, facilitating nitrogen recovery through pine-mycorrhizal associations, minimizing nitrogen availability to competing organisms, and attenuating nitrogen losses from leaching and denitrification.

Maybe this is your thesis statement. Please let me know. I have a few questions regarding the above two sentences (the second of which is somewhat of a run-on sentence):

1. You characterized an acidity/fertility gradient as a "feedback." Why?
2. Re: #1, most claims of "feedbacks" are merely violations of thermodynamics. How is this "feedback to soil conditions" a legitimate thing?
3. You have made it clear that nitrogen loss is controlled by some undefined "dominant form." What exactly is this "dominant form" and is this control of nitrogen loss a good thing or a bad thing ... and why?

Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine LitterPolyphenol control of nitrogen dynamics helps explain the convergent evolution of tannin-rich plant communities on highly leached soils.

A few more questions:

1. Must one discard your paper if one does not accept Darwin's theory?
2. Is your falsifiable theory that the properties of polyphenol drove the evolution of leached-soil plants due to specific cause-effects that you spell out in the paper?

.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:1995. Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter. Nature. 377:227-229.

I'll take you on your word that the article is worth discussing and I'll be happy to discuss it with you, from an honest, straightforward, science perspective.

I don't mean to be rude, but this sentence expresses the thought that will first enter the reader's head, i.e. that nobody cares about the importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition. Read the sentence again and you'll see what I mean.

This would have been an excellent place to write a thesis statement specifying clearly the importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition ... and why anyone would wish to read further.

OK, the reader now understands what he is about to read, i.e. that the polyphenol concentration of decomposing Pinus muricata litter controls the proportion of nitrogen released in dissolved organic forms relative to mineral forms (NH+4 + NO-3). Don't you think you should have already explained why this is important? Why is the proportion of nitrogen released in dissolved organic forms of any concern?

So I need to ask, are you trying to link this Climate Change? I'm betting that you weren't because that wasn't really much of a thing back in 1995. I hate to ask but what is your point? What is the conclusion of this paper? What is the thesis statement? This is supposed to be prominently on display in the abstract.

Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine LitterWe have previously shown that concentrations of polyphenols in P. muricata foliage vary along an extreme soil acidity/ fertility gradient. Apparently, this feedback to soil conditions controls the dominant form in which litter nitrogen is mobilized, facilitating nitrogen recovery through pine-mycorrhizal associations, minimizing nitrogen availability to competing organisms, and attenuating nitrogen losses from leaching and denitrification.

Maybe this is your thesis statement. Please let me know. I have a few questions regarding the above two sentences (the second of which is somewhat of a run-on sentence):

1. You characterized an acidity/fertility gradient as a "feedback." Why?
2. Re: #1, most claims of "feedbacks" are merely violations of thermodynamics. How is this "feedback to soil conditions" a legitimate thing?
3. You have made it clear that nitrogen loss is controlled by some undefined "dominant form." What exactly is this "dominant form" and is this control of nitrogen loss a good thing or a bad thing ... and why?

Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine LitterPolyphenol control of nitrogen dynamics helps explain the convergent evolution of tannin-rich plant communities on highly leached soils.

A few more questions:

1. Must one discard your paper if one does not accept Darwin's theory?
2. Is your falsifiable theory that the properties of polyphenol drove the evolution of leached-soil plants due to specific cause-effects that you spell out in the paper?

.

James_ wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:
And it was cited 740 times in peer-reviewed pubs.

"At the moment, all I have it the abstract. I will give you an initial critique from that."

/quote]


Not to sound like an idiot because I only did a brief overview, are you saying that not all of the nitrogen that is used as nature's fertilizer, ie., dead fish, fish that is consumed, etc. is "metabolized"?
Or are you suggesting that a part of organic matter that composts consists of nitrogen or might actually produce nitrogen through the decomposition process?
Basically N2 found in the environment has 3 covalent bonds. Does decaying matter form a type of electrolysis that could separate nitrogen like the electrolysis process does with H2O?
This might actually start with C6H12O6 and then get into CH4 and CO2 as byproducts of decomposition. With actual wood fiber, a more complex chemical structure. Am just keeping things simple. If you do a basic structural realignment, decomposing sugar creates both CO2 and CH4. How does that change the number of electrons in their bonds. And yes, I am keeping this simple which is why I'm asking you.
Isn't this like discussing organic chemistry in an atmospheric chemistry forum while these other guys are discussing political science and how we need leaders like Putin and Trump?

p.s., when wood burns, some of the CO2 might come from carbohydrates breaking down which produces the methane to burn. This might help to explain why ash can act as a fertilizer as well, maybe?

seal over wrote:And it was cited 740 times in peer-reviewed pubs.

seal over wrote:Apparently, you do not disagree with any specific assertion made regarding science.

seal over wrote:Some problems with style, but no critiques of the substance.

seal over wrote:It is possible that you are unaware that "abstract" means very brief summary.

seal over wrote:There was a reason the editors of Nature only asked that ONE SENTENCE of the abstract be revised.

seal over wrote:There was no "thesis" about the importance of dissolved organic nitrogen.

seal over wrote:The target audience were people who already knew enough about why it was important to want to learn more about what regulates its release.

seal over wrote:Like climate change. You don't need to keep repeating why its important.

seal over wrote:An abstract is not meant to exceed about one paragraph.

seal over wrote:Here's where I note that this paper has been cited in more than 740 different peer-reviewed scientific papers.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Here a paradox is being built.

Allow me to clarify.

1. There are the things that have purposes
2. There are scammers and other bad people in general who misues things to scam people.

Religion has a purpose for those who seek religion. You would be a good example. Your religion has a purpose and it, in turn, gives you purpose ... and you saw your religion and it was good.

Others seeking religion for its purpose fell upon some Marxists who sought only to enslave them. Marxists produced a religion that seemingly satisfies the need of those who seek religion. They fall into the religion believing that it is helping them make better decisions about how to live their lives, yet the decisions that follow from that religion are not in their best interest and are not in the best interests of society.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:This is incorrect. You gave a non-sequitur fallacy

No, I did not. I gave an example of a theorem that was only one intuitive step removed from one of the assumptions. Let me restate it:

* I assume Into the Night likes all ice cream

[ insert twenty-million non-contradictory statements of your choosing]

* Conclusion: Into the Night likes vanilla ice cream.

This is a valid proof. It is also a trivial proof. You can check with any math professor.

IBdaMann wrote:
Recap: Providing a proof that a religion is true is not a fallacy, it is simply not a sound argument, unless it includes FALSE statements as Marxist religions insist on including, or includes other fallacies, in which case it becomes FALSE.

You may not realize this but if you assume that the Christian God exists, and you argue that the Christian God exists because the Christian God exists, that is a valid argument ... and it is not a sound argument. You might not like the idea of your claim that the Christian God exists being labelled "unsound" but I didn't make up the terminology; it has yet to be shown that the statement "the Christian God exists" is TRUE. Nonetheless, it is a valid argument; the conclusion follows from the statement. It is also trivial. You might not like the label "trivial" but the word refers to the rigor of the logic involved, not to the conclusion itself.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: as an example to demonstrate the 'assumption', or attempt to prove a circular argument True, which is the circular argument fallacy.

Being "circular" does not necessarily impart the value of FALSE, except in definitions. Circular definitions are normally discarded.

IBdaMann wrote:
Circular arguments often result from biconditionals. For example, does pressure increase because the temperature increases or does the temperature increase because the pressure increases? ANSWER: Both, it's a biconditional.

IBdaMann wrote:
We don't consider the Ideal Gas Law to be FALSE. The multivariate interdependencies create biconitionals and we recognize that. That is allowed.

IBdaMann wrote:
A problem arises when one aspect of the argued biconditional is not shown to be TRUE. The Ideal Gas Law does not suffer from this problem because it is falsifiable and has passed the scrutiny of the scientific method.

IBdaMann wrote:
However, the concept of "feedbacks" of the Global Warming cult supposedly operate under a biconditional that has not been shown to be TRUE. Normally such fabricated biconditionals defy the second law of thermodynamics and are readily discovered to be FALSE.

IBdaMann wrote:
Recap: Being circular, in and of itself, does not garner the truth value of FALSE.

IBdaMann wrote:
Biconditionals are examples of valid, but apparently circular, arguments. When one of the conditions is shown to be FALSE, the biconditional is then considered FALSE.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:These are not proofs. These are arguments stemming from the initial argument that Christ and God exist, and they are you they say they are.

I use mathematics terminology. They are proofs. They are lists of statements each with a conclusion that follows using logic.

IBdaMann wrote:
If you have a logical conclusion, you have a proof, which is equivalent to a valid argument.

IBdaMann wrote:
At this point the mathematician determines whether the statements that led to the conclusion are themselves TRUE. If they are, the argument is considered SOUND. If the truth value of one or more of the statements cannot be verified, the argument is considered "unsound" or "not sound."

IBdaMann wrote:
NOTE: any statements in the argument that are not used in deriving the conclusion are noted as such and are removed, within the context of that argument only. This principal carries over into science and is the basis for the principal of Occam's Razor.

IBdaMann wrote:
In software engineering, this principal is incorporated into IDEs (interactive development environments) which highlight code and/or variables that is/are not used in the execution of the program.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The belief in Gods plan, or how Jesus Christ fits in to support this plan are argument that stem from the initial circular argument.

Yes, they stem from the initial assumption, rendering the conclusion trivial.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Yes you can. You are describing the Theory of Creation, a nonscientific theory. The Theory of Creation states that life on Earth arrived through the action of some kind of intelligence. It does not require that intelligence to be any god or gods. Christians believe it to be God.

I understand, but back up a step.

Let this be the theorem:

* Assumption: The domain of consideration is all of CREATION
* Conclusion: Creation had a creator.

... then no one wearing a mathematicians cap will challenge the validity of that argument. If the assumed domain is "CREATION" then the mathematician will stamp the proof as valid and head to lunch.

IBdaMann wrote:
Of course, in his notes, the mathematical will note that the proof is not sound, that CREATION has not been defined, that the proof is trivial ... but that it cannot be disputed that "a creator" follows from CREATION. It is a valid proof ...

... and it is not a fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
There is the 1995 Nature paper, if you prefer to attack that one.

1995. Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter. Nature. 377:227-229.

sealover wrote:
I am STICKING MY NECK WAY OUT FOR YOU!

sealover wrote:
I have published a falsifiable hypothesis in a prominent journal.

sealover wrote:
More than 800 citations suggest that at least one other scientist found it to be reproducible or at least worthy of discussion.

sealover wrote:
Now, if all you can say is "No science." Well, it will be a quick debate at least.

sealover wrote:
If all you can say is "No argument." One might wonder what you know that nobody else did when they published and cited it.

sealover wrote:
If all you can say is "Science is not a toaster." You might not prove your case.

sealover wrote:
A series of two word statements, X fallacy, Y fallacy, Z fallacy, may not bring anything new to the discussion.

sealover wrote:
This is LOW HANGING FRUIT for you to relish.

I cannot run away from ANY OF MY WORDS in this published falsifiable hypothesis.

sealover wrote:
You pegged me for a liar and a phony from the start.

sealover wrote:
This is the point in the videogame where you get to:

FINISH HIM!

For a FLAWLESS VICTORY!

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:1995. Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter. Nature. 377:227-229.

I'll take you on your word that the article is worth discussing and I'll be happy to discuss it with you, from an honest, straightforward, science perspective.

Please attach the article here in this thread or email it to me at IBDaMann@yahoo.com

At the moment, all I have is the abstract. I will give you an initial critique from that.

Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine Litter THE importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition is only beginning to be appreciated

I don't mean to be rude, but this sentence expresses the thought that will first enter the reader's head, i.e. that nobody cares about the importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition. Read the sentence again and you'll see what I mean.

This would have been an excellent place to write a thesis statement specifying clearly the importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition ... and why anyone would wish to read further.

Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine LitterHere we report that the polyphenol concentration of decomposing Pinus muricata litter controls the proportion of nitrogen released in dissolved organic forms relative to mineral forms (NH+4 + NO-3).

OK, the reader now understands what he is about to read, i.e. that the polyphenol concentration of decomposing Pinus muricata litter controls the proportion of nitrogen released in dissolved organic forms relative to mineral forms (NH+4 + NO-3). Don't you think you should have already explained why this is important? Why is the proportion of nitrogen released in dissolved organic forms of any concern?

So I need to ask, are you trying to link this Climate Change? I'm betting that you weren't because that wasn't really much of a thing back in 1995. I hate to ask but what is your point? What is the conclusion of this paper? What is the thesis statement? This is supposed to be prominently on display in the abstract.

Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine LitterWe have previously shown that concentrations of polyphenols in P. muricata foliage vary along an extreme soil acidity/ fertility gradient. Apparently, this feedback to soil conditions controls the dominant form in which litter nitrogen is mobilized, facilitating nitrogen recovery through pine-mycorrhizal associations, minimizing nitrogen availability to competing organisms, and attenuating nitrogen losses from leaching and denitrification.

Maybe this is your thesis statement. Please let me know. I have a few questions regarding the above two sentences (the second of which is somewhat of a run-on sentence):

1. You characterized an acidity/fertility gradient as a "feedback." Why?
2. Re: #1, most claims of "feedbacks" are merely violations of thermodynamics. How is this "feedback to soil conditions" a legitimate thing?
3. You have made it clear that nitrogen loss is controlled by some undefined "dominant form." What exactly is this "dominant form" and is this control of nitrogen loss a good thing or a bad thing ... and why?

Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine LitterPolyphenol control of nitrogen dynamics helps explain the convergent evolution of tannin-rich plant communities on highly leached soils.

A few more questions:

1. Must one discard your paper if one does not accept Darwin's theory?
2. Is your falsifiable theory that the properties of polyphenol drove the evolution of leached-soil plants due to specific cause-effects that you spell out in the paper?

.

And it was cited 740 times in peer-reviewed pubs.

sealover wrote:
"At the moment, all I have it the abstract. I will give you an initial critique from that."

Apparently, you do not disagree with any specific assertion made regarding science.

sealover wrote:
Like climate change. You don't need to keep repeating why its important.

sealover wrote:
Here's where I note that this paper has been cited in more than 740 different peer-reviewed scientific papers.

sealover wrote:
In fact, here are two valid critiques of your critique.
No science.

sealover wrote:
No argument.

sealover wrote:
As a scientific genius, can't you prove to the OTHER scientists that I am WRONG ABOUT THE SCIENCE?

sealover wrote:
Can't you muster up enough gibber babble buzzwords to make it sound like a plausible scientific argument?

James_ wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:
And it was cited 740 times in peer-reviewed pubs.

"At the moment, all I have it the abstract. I will give you an initial critique from that."

/quote]


Not to sound like an idiot because I only did a brief overview, are you saying that not all of the nitrogen that is used as nature's fertilizer, ie., dead fish, fish that is consumed, etc. is "metabolized"?
Or are you suggesting that a part of organic matter that composts consists of nitrogen or might actually produce nitrogen through the decomposition process?
Basically N2 found in the environment has 3 covalent bonds. Does decaying matter form a type of electrolysis that could separate nitrogen like the electrolysis process does with H2O?
This might actually start with C6H12O6 and then get into CH4 and CO2 as byproducts of decomposition. With actual wood fiber, a more complex chemical structure. Am just keeping things simple. If you do a basic structural realignment, decomposing sugar creates both CO2 and CH4. How does that change the number of electrons in their bonds. And yes, I am keeping this simple which is why I'm asking you.
Isn't this like discussing organic chemistry in an atmospheric chemistry forum while these other guys are discussing political science and how we need leaders like Putin and Trump?

p.s., when wood burns, some of the CO2 might come from carbohydrates breaking down which produces the methane to burn. This might help to explain why ash can act as a fertilizer as well, maybe?

Into the Night wrote:This is a presupposition.

Into the Night wrote:This is a valid statement, but not a proof.

Into the Night wrote: It is simply stating that one element of a set is in the set and labeling that as a 'conclusion'.

Into the Night wrote:A strawman. It is not possible to prove any religion True or False.

Into the Night wrote:This is not about the trivial proof.

Into the Night wrote:You are attempting to redirect the circular argument fallacy into a proof of something else that is trivial.

Into the Night wrote:I never said a circular argument imparts the value of False.

Into the Night wrote: Here you are using the word 'method', somewhat accurately, but science is not a method or a procedure.

Into the Night wrote:All theories must pass the internal consistency check.

Into the Night wrote:A nonscientific theory does NOT need to pass the external consistency check.

Into the Night wrote:Not quite. Again, the 2nd law of thermodynamics can certainly be mentioned, and discarding it out of hand is certainly stupid, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics has never been proven True, nor is it possible to do so.

Into the Night wrote:Logic is not mathematics. Mathematics is not logic.

Into the Night wrote:They are both closed functional systems, yes. But they are not the same.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:If you have a logical conclusion, you have a proof, which is equivalent to a valid argument.

No. You only have a valid argument. It is not a proof in and of itself.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: In software engineering, this principal is incorporated into IDEs (interactive development environments) which highlight code and/or variables that is/are not used in the execution of the program.

No. IDE's don't do that.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:This is a presupposition.

OK.

Into the Night wrote:This is a valid statement, but not a proof.

Hence the difference in our terminology. But I did not make the terminology that I use.

I use the standard definition of a "valid" proof/argument as simply a conclusion that would follow logically from a certain list of statements, if all were shown to be TRUE. A "sound" argument is a valid argument whose statement list has been shown to be TRUE.

It would appear that you are defining "proof" as a "sound" argument rather than as a "valid" argument as I do. As such, I have already acknowledged that no religion can be a sound argument.

Into the Night wrote: It is simply stating that one element of a set is in the set and labeling that as a 'conclusion'.

Yes, that is valid in logic.

1: X implies X
2: Y implies Y
3: X and Y implies X
4: X and Y implies Y

If you assume X then you can prove X trivially, i.e. X therefore X.

That is not a fallacy. It is a proof, and it is a valid proof, and it is trivial.

Of course, under your definitions/terminology, it is not a proof until X is shown to be true ... but to claim that X somehow does not follow logically from X is to deny logic and to deny the identity axiom.

Into the Night wrote:A strawman. It is not possible to prove any religion True or False.

Again, this is why under my terminology, it is impossible for any religion to be a sound argument and why in your terminology, religion is precluded from being a proof.

Into the Night wrote:This is not about the trivial proof.

I know. It's about whether it is a sound argument.

I have no problem with any proof being trivial or convoluted. I first determine whether it is valid, then I worry about whether it is sound. Christians will claim that all of Creation was created by a Creator. That is valid but it is not sound. Since it is not sound, you are declaring it "not a proof." OK. That's up to you. To me, it is a proof, both valid and trivial but not sound.

Into the Night wrote:You are attempting to redirect the circular argument fallacy into a proof of something else that is trivial.

I simply don't recognize it as a circular argument. I refer to all assumptions made by religious dogma as "assumptions." Since they are assumptions that have not been shown to be true, proofs thus derived will not be sound. Again, in your terminology, this makes them "not proofs" but as long as they follow logically from the axioms and assumptions, they remain proofs in my terminology.

Into the Night wrote:I never said a circular argument imparts the value of False.

A fallacy always carries the value of FALSE

Into the Night wrote: Here you are using the word 'method', somewhat accurately, but science is not a method or a procedure.

My use of the word "method" refers to one's methodology for applying critical reasoning, not as a definition of science. Of course, science has to undergo the scrutiny of a very specific methodology, i.e. the scientific method, but arguments in general are analyzed via some methodology.

I used the Ideal Gas law as an example of an argument that is a biconditional that does not suffer from one of the conditions only being assumed. The Ideal Gas law, by being science, and thus having passed scrutiny of the scientific method, stands as an example of a biconditional argument that is not a contradiction. This is to say that if neither you nor I had ever heard of the Ideal Gas law, and you were to say to me "Hey, IBDaMann, it appears that an increase in temperature causes an increase in pressure ... but that an increase in pressure causes an increase in temperature, with each seemingly causing the other" ... I would not be able to validly deny observations supporting your argument and thus I would not be able to summarily declare your argument contradictory and internally inconsistent.

However, if you tell me that carbon pollution causes thermal feedbacks that increase the earth's average temperature without any additional thermal energy ... now I have an assumed biconditional, whereby one of the conditionals is only assumed to be true, not shown to be true. At this point we immediately declare the argument to be "not sound." The argument might be valid if one of the assumptions holds that thermodynamics does not apply where Climate is concerned, but then we redoiuble our declaration that the argument is "not sound."

Into the Night wrote:All theories must pass the internal consistency check.

You need to be careful about wandering into territory whereby you end up assigning a truth value of FALSE to a religion simply because it argues an assumed biconditional. Is Christianity a fallacy? I can show that one does not equal three. Religions, such as Chritianity and Hinduism are unfalsifiable because their arguments are not sound, not because they are internally inconsistent. Christianity and Hinduism are not trying to pass as falsifiable science.

This is not the case with the Marxist faiths that claim to be falsifiable science. They garner a value of FALSE upon failing the internal consistency check. Christianity and Hinduism do not.

Into the Night wrote:A nonscientific theory does NOT need to pass the external consistency check.

Correct ... but the Marxist faiths become interesting when, as unfalsifiable dogmas, they claim to be falsifiable science.

Into the Night wrote:Not quite. Again, the 2nd law of thermodynamics can certainly be mentioned, and discarding it out of hand is certainly stupid, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics has never been proven True, nor is it possible to do so.

You picked an interesting example. The term "law" is used in science for something that is assumed to be true because out of countless observations, there has never been a single example to the contrary. You are correct that thermodynamics has not be proven to be true, but that is irrelevant. If anyone's argument is based on the assumption that there has been an observed instance to the contrary of thermodynamics, then this needs to be shown, otherwise no rational adult has any reason to accept it as true and the argument is declared to be "unsound."

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Logic is not mathematics. Mathematics is not logic.

I'd greatly appreciate one example of math that is not logic, or in one attribute of logic that does not apply to math.

Pick something in math that you believe is not logic and I'll nonetheless break it down for you into its component logic.

Into the Night wrote:They are both closed functional systems, yes. But they are not the same.

I agree that they are not the same. I claim that math is a subset of logic.

Into the Night wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wrote:If you have a logical conclusion, you have a proof, which is equivalent to a valid argument.

No. You only have a valid argument. It is not a proof in and of itself.

What I am saying is that in my terminology, a valid argument is a proof, that they are equivalent. You need for an argument to be sound to declare it a proof. That's perfectly fine.

IBdaMann wrote: In software engineering, this principal is incorporated into IDEs (interactive development environments) which highlight code and/or variables that is/are not used in the execution of the program.

No. IDE's don't do that.

See attached.
.

sealover wrote:
Carbon used to reduce itself. YES!

sealover wrote:
James, I apologize that I don't fully grasp your commentary.

I will point out a couple of things that I think I DO understand in the question.

Consider methanogenesis - old school style using hydrogen, and new wave methanogenesis using organic carbon precursors.

sealover wrote:
In old school methanogenesis, bacteria used carbon dioxide as OXIDANT.

sealover wrote:
They combined it with hydrogen gas as REDUCTANT.

CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2H2O It turned carbon dioxide to methane.

sealover wrote:
NEW WAVE METHANOGENESIS.

sealover wrote:
Bacteria take a partially oxidized organic compound, combine it with a highly reduced organic compound, then get methane plus an even more oxidized organic compound.

sealover wrote:
Consider fermentation. Alcohol, acetic acid, lactic acid. These organic compounds contain a lot more oxygen than most other. CH3CH2OH, CH3COOH.

Fermentation products contain at least one carbon compound that is more oxidized than when it started.

Consider the difference between hydrocarbon and carbohydrate.

Gram per gram, hydrocarbons contain about twice as much chemical energy to be released by aerobic oxidation than carbohydrates.

sealover wrote:
A pound of starch has twice as many calories as a pound of vegetable oil.

One way microorganisms can survive in the absence of oxygen, nitrate, ferric iron, sulfate, etc., is to use carbon itself as the oxidant to oxidize carbon in more chemically reduced form.

Fermentation and methanogenesis give the lowest energy yields of all to a microorganism trying to make a living off the oxidation of organic carbon.

Now, how the nitrogen in the compost gets transformed into nitrogen gas is an avoidable thing.

When organic nitrogen undergoes "ammonification", nitrogen is separated from carbon and released as ammonium (-NH4+).

Ammonium can be oxidized by one kind of nitrifying bacteria to nitrate, using oxygen.

Nitrite can be oxidized to nitrate by another kind of nitrifying bacteria, using oxygen.

Nitrate can be reduced to dinitrogen gas by denitrifying bacteria under low oxygen conditions, as they oxidize organic carbon using nitrate as oxidant.

Dinitrogen gas is in a HIGHER energy state, more chemically reduced, than the nitrate nitrogen it was made from.

sealover wrote:
It would yield energy to burn nitrogen with oxygen and turn the atmosphere to NOx. But the activation energy is too high for spontaneous reaction.

sealover wrote:
Maybe a lightening strike or hot tail pipe can jam nitrogen and oxygen gas together in an energy yielding reaction, but it could never ignite the whole atmosphere or even extend a few millimeters beyond the spark.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:This is a presupposition.

OK.

Into the Night wrote:This is a valid statement, but not a proof.

Hence the difference in our terminology. But I did not make the terminology that I use.

I use the standard definition of a "valid" proof/argument as simply a conclusion that would follow logically from a certain list of statements, if all were shown to be TRUE. A "sound" argument is a valid argument whose statement list has been shown to be TRUE.

It would appear that you are defining "proof" as a "sound" argument rather than as a "valid" argument as I do. As such, I have already acknowledged that no religion can be a sound argument.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: It is simply stating that one element of a set is in the set and labeling that as a 'conclusion'.

Yes, that is valid in logic.

1: X implies X
2: Y implies Y
3: X and Y implies X
4: X and Y implies Y

If you assume X then you can prove X trivially, i.e. X therefore X.

That is not a fallacy. It is a proof, and it is a valid proof, and it is trivial.

IBdaMann wrote:
Of course, under your definitions/terminology, it is not a proof until X is shown to be true ... but to claim that X somehow does not follow logically from X is to deny logic and to deny the identity axiom.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:A strawman. It is not possible to prove any religion True or False.

Again, this is why under my terminology, it is impossible for any religion to be a sound argument and why in your terminology, religion is precluded from being a proof.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:This is not about the trivial proof.

I know. It's about whether it is a sound argument.

I have no problem with any proof being trivial or convoluted. I first determine whether it is valid, then I worry about whether it is sound. Christians will claim that all of Creation was created by a Creator. That is valid but it is not sound. Since it is not sound, you are declaring it "not a proof." OK. That's up to you. To me, it is a proof, both valid and trivial but not sound.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:You are attempting to redirect the circular argument fallacy into a proof of something else that is trivial.

I simply don't recognize it as a circular argument. I refer to all assumptions made by religious dogma as "assumptions." Since they are assumptions that have not been shown to be true, proofs thus derived will not be sound. Again, in your terminology, this makes them "not proofs" but as long as they follow logically from the axioms and assumptions, they remain proofs in my terminology.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I never said a circular argument imparts the value of False.

A fallacy always carries the value of FALSE

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Here you are using the word 'method', somewhat accurately, but science is not a method or a procedure.

My use of the word "method" refers to one's methodology for applying critical reasoning, not as a definition of science.

IBdaMann wrote:
Of course, science has to undergo the scrutiny of a very specific methodology, i.e. the scientific method, but arguments in general are analyzed via some methodology.

IBdaMann wrote:
I used the Ideal Gas law as an example of an argument that is a biconditional that does not suffer from one of the conditions only being assumed. The Ideal Gas law, by being science, and thus having passed scrutiny of the scientific method, stands as an example of a biconditional argument that is not a contradiction. This is to say that if neither you nor I had ever heard of the Ideal Gas law, and you were to say to me "Hey, IBDaMann, it appears that an increase in temperature causes an increase in pressure ... but that an increase in pressure causes an increase in temperature, with each seemingly causing the other" ... I would not be able to validly deny observations supporting your argument and thus I would not be able to summarily declare your argument contradictory and internally inconsistent.

However, if you tell me that carbon pollution causes thermal feedbacks that increase the earth's average temperature without any additional thermal energy ... now I have an assumed biconditional, whereby one of the conditionals is only assumed to be true, not shown to be true. At this point we immediately declare the argument to be "not sound." The argument might be valid if one of the assumptions holds that thermodynamics does not apply where Climate is concerned, but then we redoiuble our declaration that the argument is "not sound."

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:All theories must pass the internal consistency check.

You need to be careful about wandering into territory whereby you end up assigning a truth value of FALSE to a religion simply because it argues an assumed biconditional.

IBdaMann wrote:
Is Christianity a fallacy?

IBdaMann wrote:
I can show that one does not equal three.

IBdaMann wrote:
Religions, such as Chritianity and Hinduism are unfalsifiable because their arguments are not sound, not because they are internally inconsistent. Christianity and Hinduism are not trying to pass as falsifiable science.

IBdaMann wrote:
This is not the case with the Marxist faiths that claim to be falsifiable science. They garner a value of FALSE upon failing the internal consistency check. Christianity and Hinduism do not.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:A nonscientific theory does NOT need to pass the external consistency check.

Correct ... but the Marxist faiths become interesting when, as unfalsifiable dogmas, they claim to be falsifiable science.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Not quite. Again, the 2nd law of thermodynamics can certainly be mentioned, and discarding it out of hand is certainly stupid, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics has never been proven True, nor is it possible to do so.

You picked an interesting example. The term "law" is used in science for something that is assumed to be true because out of countless observations, there has never been a single example to the contrary.

IBdaMann wrote:
You are correct that thermodynamics has not be proven to be true, but that is irrelevant.

IBdaMann wrote:
If anyone's argument is based on the assumption that there has been an observed instance to the contrary of thermodynamics, then this needs to be shown, otherwise no rational adult has any reason to accept it as true and the argument is declared to be "unsound."

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Logic is not mathematics. Mathematics is not logic.

I'd greatly appreciate one example of math that is not logic, or in one attribute of logic that does not apply to math.

Pick something in math that you believe is not logic and I'll nonetheless break it down for you into its component logic.

Set theory is not math. It is logic. The formal structure of an argument is not math. It is logic. An argument in math refers to an element of an equation, an entirely different thing. Arithmetic is not logic, it is math.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:They are both closed functional systems, yes. But they are not the same.

I agree that they are not the same. I claim that math is a subset of logic.

The axioms that form what we call mathematics are simple definitions. Logic is used to extend math from these axioms quite often, but it doesn't apply in all cases. Math itself is quite capable of formal proofs since it is a closed functional system. Logic also is capable of formal proofs, and does not need math to conduct them.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wrote:If you have a logical conclusion, you have a proof, which is equivalent to a valid argument.

No. You only have a valid argument. It is not a proof in and of itself.

What I am saying is that in my terminology, a valid argument is a proof, that they are equivalent.

IBdaMann wrote:
You need for an argument to be sound to declare it a proof. That's perfectly fine.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: In software engineering, this principal is incorporated into IDEs (interactive development environments) which highlight code and/or variables that is/are not used in the execution of the program.

No. IDE's don't do that.

See attached.

Into the Night wrote:
...deleted severely damaged quoting...

sealover wrote:
Carbon used to reduce itself. YES!

Carbon cannot reduce itself.

sealover wrote:
James, I apologize that I don't fully grasp your commentary.

I will point out a couple of things that I think I DO understand in the question.

Consider methanogenesis - old school style using hydrogen, and new wave methanogenesis using organic carbon precursors.

Carbon is not organic. Buzzword fallacy.

sealover wrote:
In old school methanogenesis, bacteria used carbon dioxide as OXIDANT.

Carbon dioxide is not an oxidizer. Buzzword fallacies.

sealover wrote:
They combined it with hydrogen gas as REDUCTANT.

CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2H2O It turned carbon dioxide to methane.

You don't need bacteria to make methane, though bacteria can make methane.

sealover wrote:
NEW WAVE METHANOGENESIS.

Buzzword fallacy.

sealover wrote:
Bacteria take a partially oxidized organic compound, combine it with a highly reduced organic compound, then get methane plus an even more oxidized organic compound.

Still don't have any idea what 'reduction' means in chemistry, do ya?

sealover wrote:
Consider fermentation. Alcohol, acetic acid, lactic acid. These organic compounds contain a lot more oxygen than most other. CH3CH2OH, CH3COOH.

Fermentation products contain at least one carbon compound that is more oxidized than when it started.

Consider the difference between hydrocarbon and carbohydrate.

Gram per gram, hydrocarbons contain about twice as much chemical energy to be released by aerobic oxidation than carbohydrates.

Which is why we use gasoline instead of sugar in cars. Redundancy.

sealover wrote:
A pound of starch has twice as many calories as a pound of vegetable oil.

One way microorganisms can survive in the absence of oxygen, nitrate, ferric iron, sulfate, etc., is to use carbon itself as the oxidant to oxidize carbon in more chemically reduced form.

Fermentation and methanogenesis give the lowest energy yields of all to a microorganism trying to make a living off the oxidation of organic carbon.

Now, how the nitrogen in the compost gets transformed into nitrogen gas is an avoidable thing.

When organic nitrogen undergoes "ammonification", nitrogen is separated from carbon and released as ammonium (-NH4+).

Ammonium can be oxidized by one kind of nitrifying bacteria to nitrate, using oxygen.

Nitrite can be oxidized to nitrate by another kind of nitrifying bacteria, using oxygen.

Nitrate can be reduced to dinitrogen gas by denitrifying bacteria under low oxygen conditions, as they oxidize organic carbon using nitrate as oxidant.

Dinitrogen gas is in a HIGHER energy state, more chemically reduced, than the nitrate nitrogen it was made from.

Carbon is not an oxidizer. There is no such chemical as 'ammonium'.

sealover wrote:
It would yield energy to burn nitrogen with oxygen and turn the atmosphere to NOx. But the activation energy is too high for spontaneous reaction.

It is an endothermic reaction. It's easily avoided in cars now due to the introduction of the EGR system.

sealover wrote:
Maybe a lightening strike or hot tail pipe can jam nitrogen and oxygen gas together in an energy yielding reaction, but it could never ignite the whole atmosphere or even extend a few millimeters beyond the spark.

Endothermic reactions don't ignite anything.

Your understanding of chemistry is dismal, to say the least. Your understanding of physics is even worse.

sealover wrote:
Oxidation of Nitrogen is EXOthermic. Just not spontaneous.

sealover wrote:
I was fortunate to have a physics instructor who was a genius and a veteran of the Manhattan Project.

sealover wrote:
He told us about how worried some of the atmospheric scientists were.

sealover wrote:
N2 + O2 = NOx is an EXOthermic reaction.

sealover wrote:
It just happens to have a very high activation energy without a catalyst.

sealover wrote:
Physicists knew that oxidation of nitrogen never extended as a spontaneous reaction beyond the microsite where high activation energy was available.

sealover wrote:
But an atomic bomb was going to do more than provide high activation energy limited to a microsite in space.

sealover wrote:
There was genuine concern that an atom bomb could provide sufficient activation energy for a spontaneous chain reaction of nitrogen oxidation to occur in the atmosphere. Because the reaction IS EXOTHERMIC.

sealover wrote:
They double checked the math, then triple checked.

sealover wrote:
The thermal diffusivity of air was insufficient to support transmission of sufficient activation energy to burn up the whole atmosphere.

sealover wrote:
It would be safe to explode an atom bomb in our atmosphere.

sealover wrote:
Any radium generated in the process would decay via radon, bismuth, and a few others to become stable lead.

sealover wrote:
And since there are not any gamma rays emitted during decay of radioactive bismuth isotopes, NOBODY WOULD GET HURT BY ANY GAMMA RADIATION.

sealover wrote:
Oxidation of dinitrogen by dioxygen is an EXOTHERMIC CHEMICAL REACTION.

sealover wrote:
Unless it's in the same universe where there are no gamma rays associated with radium decay.

GretaGroupie wrote:
Just joined today. This is such an important topic. I'm looking forward to learning. Not sure how it all works. Just posting this to test the waters.

Into the Night wrote:Most programmers do not use an IDE at all.

Into the Night wrote:Since you are worried about anything in Java to be swiped by Oracle, try a different condenser language, such as Python3.

Into the Night wrote:Java is rather like the COBOL of today. It's very awkward to use for what it does and has numerous problems with library version handling.

Into the Night wrote:So I see you like the Eclipse IDE.

Into the Night wrote: Eclipse itself can only determine an unused variable when condensing the program (Java runs as a condenser, not a compiler).

Into the Night wrote:They do not indicate unused variables.

Into the Night wrote:An IDE is really nothing more than an editor, file relation utility (project manager), automation of simple build processes (make), and a debug/run environment (like gdb), all rolled into one.

Into the Night wrote:Most IDE's are very poor at handling large complex projects.

Into the Night wrote: Syntax coloring denotes things like variable declarations, verbs, nouns, parameters, and sometimes brace handling.

Into the Night wrote:Python3 is a semi-fixed field language, which takes a bit of getting used to, but it's libraries are very stable and have little trouble with version dependencies.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Most programmers do not use an IDE at all.

All commercial programmers use IDEs,

IBdaMann wrote:
all of which identify unused variables/objects.

IBdaMann wrote:
Check with any software engineering student at any university.

IBdaMann wrote:
You'll find he uses an IDE for all of his programming.

IBdaMann wrote:
Text editors don't highlight errors or provide keyword selectors.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Since you are worried about anything in Java to be swiped by Oracle, try a different condenser language, such as Python3.

I'm not worried about Oracle swiping anything in Java. I'm saying that Oracle owns Java. If science were mandated to be unambiguously specified in Java (which would otherwise be pretty neat), Oracle would own that specification standard. Jussayn.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Java is rather like the COBOL of today. It's very awkward to use for what it does and has numerous problems with library version handling.

I have a different take. Java is the language to know. Learn Java first and object oriented software development in any language will be infinitely easier to understand.

Into the Night wrote: Eclipse itself can only determine an unused variable when condensing the program (Java runs as a condenser, not a compiler).

Java is a compiled language.

IBdaMann wrote:
Java source code is compiled into platform-independent bytecode. The bytecode is interpreted by the JVM.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:They do not indicate unused variables.

Would you point out for me a major IDE that does not? If you are aware of one, it is likely that it is a decade or more obsolete.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:An IDE is really nothing more than an editor, file relation utility (project manager), automation of simple build processes (make), and a debug/run environment (like gdb), all rolled into one.

The lookup selectors, the alignment utility and the error notifications are really big deals.

IBdaMann wrote:
Before trying to compile code,

IBdaMann wrote:
a quick glance will bring many errors/problems to one's attention so they can be quickly fixed instead of hours being wasted sorting through, and tracing, exceptions.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Most IDE's are very poor at handling large complex projects.

Eclipse works fine for large projects through seamless utilization of packages and modules.

IBdaMann wrote:
Any development team will need some sort of GIT utility,

IBdaMann wrote:
sure and of course, for very large projects, there are certainly other software project management utilities that are designed for that purpose.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Syntax coloring denotes things like variable declarations, verbs, nouns, parameters, and sometimes brace handling.

... and unused variables.

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:Python3 is a semi-fixed field language, which takes a bit of getting used to, but it's libraries are very stable and have little trouble with version dependencies.

I am a Python 3 programmer as well, and I use PyCharm for that.

IBdaMann wrote:
Oh, speaking of which, see the attached.

GretaGroupie wrote:
Just joined today. This is such an important topic. I'm looking forward to learning. Not sure how it all works. Just posting this to test the waters.

Into the Night wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:
Just joined today. This is such an important topic. I'm looking forward to learning. Not sure how it all works. Just posting this to test the waters.

We welcome you. I realize that you favor the message of Greta Thunberg here, and that you think global warming is a problem. Here you will find why simple laws of physics make the concept of a greenhouse gas impossible.

I do not deny that CO2 (and many other gases) absorb infrared light, but it's just another way for a warmer surface to heat the air. Most by heating by conduction, but also heating by radiance.

All of it is radiated into space. All substances that are warmer than absolute zero (which is all substances) convert thermal energy into electromagnetic energy (light) according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
r = C * e * t^4 where 'r' is radiance in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant, which serves to convert the relation to our units of measurement, 'e' is the emissivity of the surface, or how well it absorbs light, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

Essentially then, 'C' and 'e' are constants. 'C' being a natural constant, and 'e' being a measured constant. As temperature increases, radiance goes up, emitting more energy into space.

GretaGroupie wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:
Just joined today. This is such an important topic. I'm looking forward to learning. Not sure how it all works. Just posting this to test the waters.

We welcome you. I realize that you favor the message of Greta Thunberg here, and that you think global warming is a problem. Here you will find why simple laws of physics make the concept of a greenhouse gas impossible.

I do not deny that CO2 (and many other gases) absorb infrared light, but it's just another way for a warmer surface to heat the air. Most by heating by conduction, but also heating by radiance.

All of it is radiated into space. All substances that are warmer than absolute zero (which is all substances) convert thermal energy into electromagnetic energy (light) according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
r = C * e * t^4 where 'r' is radiance in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant, which serves to convert the relation to our units of measurement, 'e' is the emissivity of the surface, or how well it absorbs light, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

Essentially then, 'C' and 'e' are constants. 'C' being a natural constant, and 'e' being a measured constant. As temperature increases, radiance goes up, emitting more energy into space.

Oh ITN, you are so right.

Everyone with half a brain knows CO2 isn't the real problem, but a mere fuse. And as for those bothersome F-, N-, CH4, and, dare I say, S-gases, well I'm sure you realize too that they're mere accelerants, so why waste any time talking about them? No, you (obviously) and I know what the real issue is.

Bravo!

As for Greta, I do love her so, but she is, perhaps, just a little bit misguided, wouldn't you say?

GretaGroupie wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:
Just joined today. This is such an important topic. I'm looking forward to learning. Not sure how it all works. Just posting this to test the waters.

We welcome you. I realize that you favor the message of Greta Thunberg here, and that you think global warming is a problem. Here you will find why simple laws of physics make the concept of a greenhouse gas impossible.

I do not deny that CO2 (and many other gases) absorb infrared light, but it's just another way for a warmer surface to heat the air. Most by heating by conduction, but also heating by radiance.

All of it is radiated into space. All substances that are warmer than absolute zero (which is all substances) convert thermal energy into electromagnetic energy (light) according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
r = C * e * t^4 where 'r' is radiance in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant, which serves to convert the relation to our units of measurement, 'e' is the emissivity of the surface, or how well it absorbs light, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

Essentially then, 'C' and 'e' are constants. 'C' being a natural constant, and 'e' being a measured constant. As temperature increases, radiance goes up, emitting more energy into space.

Oh ITN, you are so right.

Everyone with half a brain knows CO2 isn't the real problem, but a mere fuse. And as for those bothersome F-, N-, CH4, and, dare I say, S-gases, well I'm sure you realize too that they're mere accelerants, so why waste any time talking about them? No, you (obviously) and I know what the real issue is.

Bravo!

As for Greta, I do love her so, but she is, perhaps, just a little bit misguided, wouldn't you say?

sealover wrote:
You won't be allowed to even talk about them until EVERYONE is satisfied that you have unambiguously defined all your terms.

Into the Night wrote:
A mere fuse for what?

GretaGroupie wrote:For everything, silly! We all know CO2 isn't the real issue, cause, there is no issue (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

GretaGroupie wrote:You are so smart, ITN. No one's going to fool you!

GretaGroupie wrote:

sealover wrote:
You won't be allowed to even talk about them until EVERYONE is satisfied that you have unambiguously defined all your terms.

Oh my, sealover, well aren't you the dominant alpha male, telling everyone what the have to do. That's kinda hot!

Well, I guess I must obey you and define ALL my terms, so, would you like me to send you my dick-tionary?

IBdaMann wrote:
Have you tried using the machine that goes "bing!"?
.

GretaGroupie wrote:I've used a machine that goes buzzzzz (think of a low soothing hum),

GretaGroupie wrote:"Live-in-la-vida-vida" (or something like that).