Re: [APD] Assumptions

[David Aiken <daiken at iprimus_com.au>]

On 10/11/2005, at 4:10 AM, Jerry Baker wrote:

> urville wrote:
>> in this instance with the lines drawen as they are, and  whats at  
>> stake and the amount of posts that have occured over this subject  
>> i'd be remissed if i didnt say that is exactly what you should do
>
> If someone wants to challenge the notion that diffusion really  
> happens, I welcome their attempts to do so and I would be  
> interested to read the results of their endeavor. I feel compelled  
> to point out that when someone challenges an established principle,  
> the burden of proof is on them. My argument does not involve  
> challenging the principles of diffusion, so I am not going to test  
> the validity of it. It is intellectually dishonest to attempt to  
> discredit the results of a scientific investigation by representing  
> established scientific principles as open to controversy when they  
> aren't. This is the *exact* kind of junk that is going on in Kansas  
> right now. The only difference is that here the consequences are  
> relatively trivial.

I never challenged the principles of diffusion. You claimed to have  
evidence for what was in the tube and all I said was that you had no  
evidence for that claim. You have scientific principles which are an  
extremely good basis for predicting what is in there but, until you  
confirm that prediction by testing, you have no evidence for what is  
in there and, without evidence, you're making an assumption. That's  
something you happily criticise everyone else for.

Until you test, you aren't stating what is in the tube - you're  
merely predicting what will be found if you do test. You have grounds  
for the prediction. You don't have any evidence for what is actually  
in the tube since evidence for that requires testing what exactly is  
in the tube.

As to me doing anything like being "intellectually dishonest" and  
trying "to attempt to discredit the results of a scientific  
investigation by representing established scientific principles as  
open to controversy when they aren't", your test was about  
dissolution rates which you were measuring by counting the bubbles  
required for the gas to reach a certain volume in the tube. I didn't  
question those results at all. I questioned a claim you made about  
something else - the contents of the gas collected - which you did  
not test. It's intellectually dishonest to claim that I was trying to  
discredit the results of your investigation. I accepted the only  
investigative results you reported. I questioned a claim that was not  
the subject of an investigation.

David Aiken


_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants