Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 1 of 212>
How would YOU know? It's a valid question.02-05-2024 01:17
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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?
RE: hypothetical example02-05-2024 02:32
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
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.
02-05-2024 03:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
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.
RE: How would YOU know what "Scientists use.."?02-05-2024 03:23
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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"?

AND

Do you agree with the assertion that hydrogen ion is NOT a proton?
02-05-2024 04:07
keepit
★★★★★
(3158)
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.
RE: nor have I02-05-2024 04:34
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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.



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

Nor have I.

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

One line I NEVER heard anyone say was "define your terms"

Much less, the demand for an "unambiguous definition". Never heard of it.

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

And I have never heard a legitimate scientist call someone a "moron".
02-05-2024 04:54
keepit
★★★★★
(3158)
In the poker world those are called "tells.
02-05-2024 04:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
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.

... because they all define their terms unambiguously up front, and they answer all clarification questions, thus eliminating semantic ambiguity.

Of course, you probably didn't understand that part.

Im a BM wrote: Nor have I.

Probably because you have never known any scientists.

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

You spent several decades as the butt boy of people who assured you they were wethpected thienth geniutheth. They fed you a bunch of Climate gibber-babble and you were hooked, bending over on command.

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

Is that because the terms were already unambiguously defined up front as a matter of course, or because none of the people reaming you with Climate gibber-babble were actually the wethpected thienth geniutheth that they assured you they were?

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

You probably never took a science class in your life. One day, someone handed you a gamma-spec and said "Here, boy, you and Climate faith have earned this. Do yourself proud."

I hope you are enjoying your gamma-spec superhero fantasy. At least you're not hurting anyone.

RE: Which one do YOU believe?02-05-2024 05:05
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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.

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

Which one do YOU believe?

Hint: Protonix is a medicine used to control stomach acid.

It is so well known that (acid) hydrogen ions are protons that it gets into product labels.
02-05-2024 05:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
keepit wrote: In the poker world those are called "tells.

In the poker world, those are called "time to show your cards."
02-05-2024 05:09
keepit
★★★★★
(3158)
Show your cards ibd. Where did you go to school and what was your field of study?
Edited on 02-05-2024 05:34
02-05-2024 05:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
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.
02-05-2024 05:14
keepit
★★★★★
(3158)
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.
Edited on 02-05-2024 05:15
02-05-2024 05:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
keepit wrote: Show your cards ibd. Where did you go to school and what did you study?

I live in the science world, not the poker world. In science, credentials have no bearing. Scientists don't engage in bluffing.

Besides, you never caught on that your opponents never tossed any chips into the pot. When you asked why you were the only one who threw a chip into the ante, they always told "Oh yeah, I ante'd up too. One chip plus one chip equals one chip."
02-05-2024 05:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
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?

The fact that you are unable to read and understand English is YOUR problem.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-05-2024 05:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
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.

No, keepit. You cannot read. Go back to the children's table and just color some more. If you run out of crayons, I'll have more sent over.

Robup Northert squeals over a Bumm is clearly asserting that scientists never define their terms, yet all scientists unambiguously define their terms up front.
02-05-2024 05:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
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.

Chemistry is not a university, degree, author, publication, journal, or website.
Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
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.

Hydrogen is not a proton.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: A greased pig when he's not a tar baby02-05-2024 05:19
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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"
02-05-2024 05:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
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"?

By definition.
Im a BM wrote:
AND

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

Hydrogen is not a proton.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-05-2024 05:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
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.

Science is not a course.
Science is not a DVD.
You don't get to declare 'legitimacy'. Omniscience fallacy.
It is YOU making semantics fallacies. You cannot project YOUR problem onto anybody else. Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-05-2024 05:25
keepit
★★★★★
(3158)
itn,
more semantics huh.
02-05-2024 05:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
Im a BM wrote:
Nor have I.

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

You don't get to declare 'legitimacy', Sock. Omniscience fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
One line I NEVER heard anyone say was "define your terms"

Because you deny science in favor of religion.
Im a BM wrote:
Much less, the demand for an "unambiguous definition". Never heard of it.

Because you deny science in favor of religion.
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...

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
And I have never heard a legitimate scientist call someone a "moron".

True Scotsman fallacy. Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to declare 'legitimacy'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-05-2024 05:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
keepit wrote:
In the poker world those are called "tells.

You have no idea what a 'tell' is, or how to play poker. You don't even know what a shill is.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-05-2024 05:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote: In the poker world those are called "tells.

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

Otherwise known as the 'showdown'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-05-2024 05:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
keepit wrote:
Show your cards ibd. Where did you go to school and what did you study?

Attempted dox.

Science isn't a school.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-05-2024 05:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
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.


Science isn't a circle or a community.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-05-2024 05:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
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"

So you are no scientist, by your own definition.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 02-05-2024 05:32
02-05-2024 05:47
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2949)
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.



You describe yourself quite well!

Would you like to take another stab at explaining how "CO2 increases thermal energy 'residence time'" doesn't violate the Stefan–Boltzmann law?

Lube up!


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
02-05-2024 05:52
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2949)
Im a BM wrote:

Why should anyone believe YOU?


When did science become what we believe? If that were the case it would be no different than any religion. Huh!

I always thought science was a set of falsifiable theories that are what we know to be true until they are falsified. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll ask someone I believe and get back to you on that.


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
02-05-2024 05:54
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2949)
IBdaMann wrote:




Damn near killed me again!
:


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
02-05-2024 06:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
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.
RE: "The term 'proton' is used within the context of chemical reactions."02-05-2024 06:46
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
"The term 'proton' is used within the context of chemical reactions.." - IBD

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

However, nuclear physicists also talk about "protons", but in the context of nuclear reactions, which include EVERY kind of atom, not just hydrogen.

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

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.
02-05-2024 09:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: YOU are a buzzword!02-05-2024 17:51
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
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!

You deny basic vocabulary.

Chemists have multiple terms to refer to H+, but they most often use "proton".
02-05-2024 20:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: IBM stated it clearly02-05-2024 22:00
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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.
02-05-2024 22:40
James_
★★★★★
(2251)
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?



OMG!!! And the next thing you know there will be a "climate debatre". Can
you define "debatre"?
RE: neither of the greased pigs will touch it02-05-2024 23:45
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
Both IBM and ITN have gone into greased pig mode.

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

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.

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

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.
03-05-2024 00:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 03-05-2024 00:47
RE: How would YOU know?03-05-2024 01:07
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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.


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

How would YOU know?

Why should anyone believe YOU?

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.

I think I'm done with the experiment of directly engaging with you.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate How would YOU know? It's a valid question.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
General Question in General Forum.15905-05-2024 17:01
12V DC motor question2418-02-2024 23:24
Just one simple question3925-10-2023 02:31
Honest Question for Christians10229-12-2022 16:57
Question for Fauci and Rand Paul about covid 19. Sir's are there any classified files on covid 191802-12-2022 13:48
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact