[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APD] Assumptions, Gas Diffusion, Experiments
Bill D wrote:
> These are obviously very interesting subjects for some. They are also quite
> complex and specialized, and I think that they are perhaps too complex and
> specialized for this kind of forum.
I don't think I've ever seen it suggested that a topic so directly
related to aquatic plants was "too complex" for this forum. Is there a
precedent in the archive? I've seen some conversations over the years
that grew pretty esoteric. I suspect that people have some emotional
stake in positions they have taken on this issue and that's why actually
investigating it in a systematic way is so uncomfortable to them.
The debate has frequently veered off course and devolved into bickering
about who said what and when. I agree that it is most annoying. I cannot
help what other people post. If you can point to one single post that I
have made that is belittling or makes any personal attacks, please point
it out. In fact, I don't believe there's any message by me that
addresses anything even slightly off-topic that isn't a direct response
to someone else's challenge directed at me. My experience has been that
when bad things are happening, it is more helpful to address the source
rather than the symptom.
> From what I've read, I think most people here lack the interest in these
> topics that you and a few others have, and a few (or more) no longer post
> here or have unsubscribed because of that.
So people subscribe to a list to discuss aquatic plants, and then
unsubscribe when there is a lot of discussion about issues related to
aquatic plants? I'm not sure why someone would do that. Scientific
debate is raucous sometimes. People get angry. People get offended. Is
that some reason not to discuss things?
If this list was not set up with the intention of discussing aquatic
plants and related topics, or if it is against the rules or charter to
question the theories posted on this list, please say so directly.
> So, Jerry, what do you think?
I have actually been working on such a paper(you can see the skeleton
draft here: http://www.bakerweb.biz/fish/diffusion.html), but I am just
coming to suspect that no amount of evidence is going to convince some
people. I am curious to hear a "CO2 mist" proponent outline what
experiment(s) would falsify the theory, because if a theory cannot be
falsified, and cannot be tested, it isn't scientific.
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com