How would YOU know? It's a valid question.

Im a BM wrote:
How would YOU know?

Im a BM wrote:
Why should anyone believe YOU?

Im a BM wrote:
It was tempting to mock your style and add "..., dumbass".

Or remind you that "You are a nothing" "You are a moron" "You are a liar" as you so often felt compelled to write to me and many others who were foolish enough to try to have a rational discussion on this website.

Im a BM wrote:
I think I'm done with the experiment of directly engaging with you.

keepit wrote:
ibd,
The issue im a bm is pointing out is not the definition of a moron. He and i are pointing out that calling people morons isn't done in scientific circles, at least not in the usa.

keepit wrote: ibd, The issue im a bm is pointing out is not the definition of a moron. He and i are pointing out that calling people morons isn't done in scientific circles, at least not in the usa.

sealover wrote: Yes, keepit, it is definitely a "tell" when their first resort is to call someone a "moron".

sealover wrote: Within a few hours of my very first post, the senior troll and his second rate sidekick had both informed me: "You are a moron"

sealover wrote: It's not just that legitimate scientists don't call others "morons", they don't call them "retards" or "idiots" or even just "dumb" or "stupid".

sealover wrote: They might tell them they are wrong about the point being discussed.

sealover wrote: And a term that I never heard anyone use before I came to this website is "scientifically illiterate".

sealover wrote:

keepit wrote:
ibd,
The issue im a bm is pointing out is not the definition of a moron. He and i are pointing out that calling people morons isn't done in scientific circles, at least not in the usa.

Yes, keepit, it is definitely a "tell" when their first resort is to call someone a "moron".

sealover wrote:
Within a few hours of my very first post, the senior troll and his second rate sidekick had both informed me: "You are a moron"

It's not just that legitimate scientists don't call others "morons", they don't call them "retards" or "idiots" or even just "dumb" or "stupid".

sealover wrote:
They might tell them they are wrong about the point being discussed.

It might even get heated enough where they might call the ARGUMENT being made "dumb" or "stupid".

But they don't do the personal attack thing.

sealover wrote:
And a term that I never heard anyone use before I came to this website is "scientifically illiterate".

sealover wrote:
I have since adopted it, exclusively for use here, because it is such obvious projection that I figure it must be a sensitive point of insecurity.

Im a BM wrote: What is nitrogen?

Im a BM wrote: No discussion can go forward without an "unambiguous definition".

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: My experience of "debating" science with ibd is ...

blah blah blah

Im a BM wrote: Pretty sure he'll refuse to answer if he has any valid claim to refer to himself as one of the "resident science experts",

blah blah blah

Im a BM wrote: and he'll dodge taking any position on the very straightforward chemistry question: Are hydrogen ions protons?

The correct terms used by chemists are hydrogen cations or hydronium ions, when used in the chemistry context of molecules. The term "proton" is used within the context of chemical reactions. The context needs to be stated unambiguously up front.

... but you are being dishonest here. You are pretending to mock Into the Night for correctly stating that hydrogen is not a proton. You do this sort of thing whenever you get caught making an error that no chemist would make, and you will never admit to having made a chemistry error.

Im a BM wrote: One says he has advanced degrees in chemistry from prestigious universities, and is the author of widely cited publications about chemistry in prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals.

keepit wrote: ibd, It's simple. If someone doesn't agree with your group's mindset you think they're wrong. That's pretty funny!

keepit wrote:
ibd,
It's simple. If someone doesn't agree with your group's mindset you think they're wrong. That's pretty funny!

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: One says he has advanced degrees in chemistry from prestigious universities, and is the author of widely cited publications about chemistry in prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Does this claimant of "advanced degrees" know the difference between "chemistry" and "chemical reactions"?

Im a BM wrote:

keepit wrote:
ibd,
It's simple. If someone doesn't agree with your group's mindset you think they're wrong. That's pretty funny!

Keepit is right, of course.

A "debate" that declares "unambiguous definitions" are required in "science".

Convoluted word games, with no scientific validity.

Denigrating the scientific knowledge of others without ever ONCE offering any reason to believe they know what they are talking about.

But the bottom line is simple.

The only goal is to be a troll.

Im a BM wrote: Keepit is right, of course.

Im a BM wrote: A "debate" that declares "unambiguous definitions" are required in "science".

Im a BM wrote: Convoluted word games, with no scientific validity.

Im a BM wrote: Denigrating the scientific knowledge of others ...

Im a BM wrote: ... without ever ONCE offering any reason to believe ...

Im a BM wrote: ... they know what they are talking about.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

keepit wrote:
ibd,
It's simple. If someone doesn't agree with your group's mindset you think they're wrong. That's pretty funny!

Keepit is right, of course.

A "debate" that declares "unambiguous definitions" are required in "science".

Convoluted word games, with no scientific validity.

Denigrating the scientific knowledge of others without ever ONCE offering any reason to believe they know what they are talking about.

But the bottom line is simple.

The only goal is to be a troll.

You are just describing yourself, Sock. You cannot project YOUR problems onto anybody else.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

keepit wrote:
ibd,
It's simple. If someone doesn't agree with your group's mindset you think they're wrong. That's pretty funny!

Keepit is right, of course.

A "debate" that declares "unambiguous definitions" are required in "science".

Convoluted word games, with no scientific validity.

Denigrating the scientific knowledge of others without ever ONCE offering any reason to believe they know what they are talking about.

But the bottom line is simple.

The only goal is to be a troll.

You are just describing yourself, Sock. You cannot project YOUR problems onto anybody else.

"You cannot project YOUR problems onto anybody else."

REFUSING to answer the very straightforward question.

In the context of BOTH "chemistry" AND "chemical reactions".

Is hydrogen ion (H+) correctly referred to as a "proton"?

Im a BM wrote:REFUSING to answer the very straightforward question. ... And the troll expects to be taken seriously?

Im a BM wrote:
Many assertions are made in discussion websites.

Most of them do not include citable references.

They may or may not be unsupported contrarian assertions made purely for the sake of "debate".

Or they may be completely valid and accurate.

When an assertion is made with definitive authority about science, it is a valid question to ask:

How would YOU know?

Why should anyone believe YOU?


Let's imagine that there is "debate" about whether or not, for example, hydrogen ion (H+) is a proton. One insists that it is, the other insists that it is not.

Who do we believe?

As an observer, I might ask each of them:

"How would YOU know?"

One says he has advanced degrees in chemistry from prestigious universities, and is the author of widely cited publications about chemistry in prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The other says he has a finely tuned bullshit detector and a proton is a proton.

I think I'll believe the one who says that hydrogen ion IS a proton.

Im a BM wrote:
The inspiration...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The inspiration...

Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The inspiration...

Stop spamming.

Stop WHINING!

And maybe stop trolling while you're at it.

Im a BM wrote:
The inspiration for this thread was a recent discussion on the "Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean" Thread.

The PhD biogeochemist author of the thread stated that:

"When chemists refer to a 'proton', it is virtually always a reference to the hydrogen ion (H+)"

To this, Into the Night responded:

"Nope. It means a proton and nothing else. You cannot rename a proton to something else. Redefinition fallacy."

The assertion was repeated again and again. Nope. Hydrogen ion is NOT a proton.

On this thread, there has been a pivot to "Hydrogen is not a proton", as the clarifying final answer. ("RQAA")

Well, it's a good thing we finally got THAT straightened out!

-------------------------------------------------------

Update: Just to make things perfectly clear, Into the Night again asserts:

"Hydrogen is not a proton."

No further questions.

--------------------------------------------------------

Many assertions are made in discussion websites.

Most of them do not include citable references.

They may or may not be unsupported contrarian assertions made purely for the sake of "debate".

Or they may be completely valid and accurate.

When an assertion is made with definitive authority about science, it is a valid question to ask:

How would YOU know?

Why should anyone believe YOU?


Let's imagine that there is "debate" about whether or not, for example, hydrogen ion (H+) is a proton. One insists that it is, the other insists that it is not.

Who do we believe?

As an observer, I might ask each of them:

"How would YOU know?"

One says he has advanced degrees in chemistry from prestigious universities, and is the author of widely cited publications about chemistry in prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The other says he has a finely tuned bullshit detector and a proton is a proton.

I think I'll believe the one who says that hydrogen ion IS a proton.

Im a BM wrote:
One of the false claims that is repeated endlessly on this website is the idea that "science" requires an "unambiguous definition" for every term in every discussion.

Im a BM wrote:
Never mind if that term is found in any dictionary, and virtually everyone who uses it knows exactly what they are all trying to say.

Im a BM wrote:
It is just an excuse to avoid citing any meaningful references, prevent any meaningful discussion from going forward, and derail it from science to word games.

Im a BM wrote:
The latest word games include trying to pretend that "chemistry" and "chemical reactions" are mutually exclusive categories.

Im a BM wrote:
To disguise the fact that our tenured trolls didn't even understand what little chemistry they may or may not have been exposed to in high school.