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

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?

sealover wrote: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? ...

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.

IBdaMann wrote:
Scientists use science to determine which arguments they accept. Morons are swayed by the mere assertion of credentials as the basis for determining what they will believe. Morons assume that everyone else believes as they do.

sealover wrote: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? ...

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:
I've taken a lot of science courses and watched dvd's etc. I've never seen a legitimate scientist get hung up on semantics.

keepit wrote: I've taken a lot of science courses and watched dvd's etc. I've never seen a legitimate scientist get hung up on semantics.

Im a BM wrote: Nor have I.

Im a BM wrote: And I spent several decades in the company of people who were highly respected as legitimate scientists.

Im a BM wrote: One line I NEVER heard anyone say was "define your terms"

Im a BM wrote: Much less, the demand for an "unambiguous definition". Never heard of it.

keepit wrote: In the poker world those are called "tells.

sealover wrote: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? ...

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: Show your cards ibd. Where did you go to school and what did you study?

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?

keepit wrote: 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.

sealover wrote:
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?"
Your inability to read and understand English is YOUR problem.
[quote]sealover 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.

sealover wrote:
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.

keepit wrote:
Show your cards ibd. Where did you go to school and what did you study?

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Scientists use science to determine which arguments they accept. Morons are swayed by the mere assertion of credentials as the basis for determining what they will believe. Morons assume that everyone else believes as they do.

sealover wrote: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? ...

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.

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

It is a valid question to ask:

How would YOU know that "Scientists use science... blah blah blah"?

Im a BM wrote:
AND

Do you agree with the assertion that hydrogen ion is NOT a proton?

keepit wrote:
I've taken a lot of science courses and watched dvd's etc. I've never seen a legitimate scientist get hung up on semantics.

Im a BM wrote:
Nor have I.

And I spent several decades in the company of people who were highly respected as legitimate scientists.

Im a BM wrote:
One line I NEVER heard anyone say was "define your terms"

Im a BM wrote:
Much less, the demand for an "unambiguous definition". Never heard of it.

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps they were too embarrassed to admit that they didn't already know the definitions that everyone else in the room understood perfectly? Nah...

Im a BM wrote:
And I have never heard a legitimate scientist call someone a "moron".

keepit wrote:
In the poker world those are called "tells.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: In the poker world those are called "tells.

In the poker world, those are called "time to show your cards."

keepit wrote:
Show your cards ibd. Where did you go to school and what did you study?

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.

Im a BM wrote:

keepit wrote:
Show your cards ibd. Where did you go to school and what did you study?

My experience of "debating" science with ibd is that he is either a greased pig or a tar baby.

A tar baby keeps sticking to you no matter how hard you try to get it off.

A greased pig slips away from you no matter how firm your grasp.

Pretty sure he'll refuse to answer if he has any valid claim to refer to himself as one of the "resident science experts", and he'll dodge taking any position on the very straightforward chemistry question: Are hydrogen ions protons?

He is in greased pig mode whenever challenged to support his assertions.

He'll immediately go back to tar baby mode to pester with repetitive posts (define your terms, you moron, etc.)

Back before the Internet we used to call such folks "pests". "Troll" = "Pest"

Im a BM wrote:

keepit wrote:
Show your cards ibd. Where did you go to school and what did you study?

Pretty sure he'll refuse to answer if he has any valid claim to refer to himself as one of the "resident science experts", and he'll dodge taking any position on the very straightforward chemistry question: Are hydrogen ions protons?

He is in greased pig mode whenever challenged to support his assertions.

Im a BM wrote:

Why should anyone believe YOU?

IBdaMann wrote:

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

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",

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

IBdaMann wrote:

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

... to EVADE every one of my points, to dodge every one of my questions and to revise history as a distraction for all of the above. That's all. You haven't ever defined any of the terms for which you have been asked to unambiguously define, despite your responsibility to do so as the one making the affirmative argument and per your obligation to do so under your assertion supposedly science.

You entire experience "debating" amounts to preaching your religion and EVADING questions that threaten your faith.

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",

This is an anonymous forum, i.e. claims of credentials are meaningless ... yet you rest entirely upon them. ENTIRELY. Also, I'm not the one making any affirmative argument here. I'm the one being asked to believe something and am simply trying to get some clarification.

Epic FAIL.

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:
"The term 'proton' is used within the context of chemical reactions.." - IBD

Correct. Specifically in the context of acid-base chemical reactions.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"The term 'proton' is used within the context of chemical reactions.." - IBD

Correct. Specifically in the context of acid-base chemical reactions.

You deny acid/base chemistry.

Acid/base chemistry is not buzzwords.

sealover wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"The term 'proton' is used within the context of chemical reactions.." - IBD

Correct. Specifically in the context of acid-base chemical reactions.

You deny acid/base chemistry.

Acid/base chemistry is not buzzwords.

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

YOU are a buzzword!

sealover wrote:
You deny basic vocabulary.

sealover wrote:
Chemists have multiple terms to refer to H+, but they most often use "proton".

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"The term 'proton' is used within the context of chemical reactions.." - IBD

Correct. Specifically in the context of acid-base chemical reactions.

You deny acid/base chemistry.

Acid/base chemistry is not buzzwords.

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

YOU are a buzzword!

A buzzword is not a person, Sock.

sealover wrote:
You deny basic vocabulary.

You are describing yourself again, Sock. You cannot project YOUR problems on to anybody else.

sealover wrote:
Chemists have multiple terms to refer to H+, but they most often use "proton".

You don't get to speak for everyone, Sock. Omniscience fallacy. Hydrogen is not a proton. A proton is not an element. Hydrogen is.

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?

Im a BM wrote:
IBM stated it quite clearly in his post:

"The term 'proton' is used within the context of chemical reactions."

Surprisingly, he actually got it right.

I take it that you do not agree.

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

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"The term 'proton' is used within the context of chemical reactions.." - IBD

Correct. Specifically in the context of acid-base chemical reactions.

You deny acid/base chemistry.

Acid/base chemistry is not buzzwords.

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

YOU are a buzzword!

A buzzword is not a person, Sock.

sealover wrote:
You deny basic vocabulary.

You are describing yourself again, Sock. You cannot project YOUR problems on to anybody else.

sealover wrote:
Chemists have multiple terms to refer to H+, but they most often use "proton".

You don't get to speak for everyone, Sock. Omniscience fallacy. Hydrogen is not a proton. A proton is not an element. Hydrogen is.

sealover wrote:
Both IBM and ITN have gone into greased pig mode.

sealover wrote:
When asked to support their published assertions, they just slip away.

sealover wrote:
Anyway, as anyone can find with the dictionary definition of "acid" or "proton", chemists refer to hydrogen ions (H+) as "protons" more often than not. An acid can donate a "proton" in acid-base chemical reactions.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Both IBM and ITN have gone into greased pig mode.

Buzzword fallacy. Cliche fallacy.

sealover wrote:
When asked to support their published assertions, they just slip away.

RQAA.

sealover wrote:
Anyway, as anyone can find with the dictionary definition of "acid" or "proton", chemists refer to hydrogen ions (H+) as "protons" more often than not. An acid can donate a "proton" in acid-base chemical reactions.

Dictionaries don't define any word, Sock.
Dictionaries aren't a chemistry textbook either. A proton is not a chemical.
You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy. False authority fallacy.