[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APD] Assumptions
David Aiken wrote:
> 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.
The evidence is the fact that diffusion happens. It's not a matter that
is in dispute. To say it might not have happened in this case is to
question the principles of diffusion.
> 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.
I would bet on penalty of death that there is *some* oxygen in the tube.
There's no way there isn't. What is in question is whether it is
something like 0.0001% or 50%.
> 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.
I did not mean that you were questioning my results. I meant that you
were introducing a controversy where there is none. Diffusion is a fact
of life. It happens without qualification wherever there is a
concentration gradient. A bubble of nearly pure CO2 is one such place.
If oxygen is present, it *will* diffuse into the bubble. There is
absolutely no question about that. Implying that this is not the case
appeared to me as though you were trying to make it appear that there
was a genuinely valid question about whether diffusion had taken place.
Of that, there is no question. My apologies if that is not what you
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com