The value in having "robust" scientific debate...

[David haffner sr]

Science at its most basic level is knowledge, and the quest for "knowing". The scientific process is a set of processes and protocols developed in order to discover the knowledge that one is seeking. This fundamental fact demands only one mechanism in order to achieve that goal, and it is "logic," without it, your quest for knowledge will be based on "faith" and that is the worst kind of plan because anything and everything can be a possibility without ever begin seen or experienced by any of our 5 senses.

This process rests upon a linchpin of sorts, called "robust scientific debate." There needs to be disagreements, that's the corner stone of the entire process, without it there would never be any forward progress because the individuals involved in this debate, would be mired in the mind set of micro-aggressive behaviour, and that is destructive to the entire process. Case in point, EZ water, "the fourth phase of water," well, of course there is a 4th phase, and a 5th, 6th, 7th and so on, this is what EZ water is: Deionized water,  DI water (deionized water) not only has impurities filtered out, but it also has ions removed. The pure water does not conduct electricity because there are no ions to allow electrons to flow. Therefore, the DI water will not add any other unaccounted for reactions to the experiment. 

So, knowing this information, what would be the point in studying absorption at 270nm? Water has a wavelength cutoff at 190nm, deionized water also has no TDS (total dissolved solids,) the same holds true for distilled water, no TDS. Absorption spectroscopy requires the analyte to have a certain percentage of molecules for photons to be absorbed, NO molecues, NO absorption, period! I still haven't been able to capture either by absorption or fluorescence spectroscopy any Oxygen or hydrogen molecules?

Pseudoscience, a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method, this is one of my biggest pet peeves, any information you desire, is readily available in any library, book store, university, college or the internet, it your responsibility to decern through that information and process what is fact from fiction. Too much pseudoscience is begin disseminated and accepted as fact without nay a word of repudiation, for fear of "hurting" someones feelings, if revealing the truth about a matter is hurting feelings, then there is a social meme that needs to be seriously addressed and dealt with on a more personal level.

Dave H

 

[Liz Barry]

Hi Dave, 

Can you give me a call at +1 336-269-1539 or on skype hi.liz, or on another channel that you recommend? As one of the moderators on the list, i have to check in with you about keeping the tone of your messages supportive towards other community members especially while sharing information that may contradict someone else's frame of reference. 

Thank you, 

--

Liz Barry
director of community development
@publiclab

publiclab.org

+1-336-269-1539

Love our work? Become a Public Lab Sustaining Member today!

--
Post to this group at plots-sp...@googlegroups.com
 
Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are great for discussion, but to get attribution, open source your work, and make it easy for others to find and cite your contributions, please publish your work at http://publiclab.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "plots-spectrometry" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[David haffner sr]

hey Liz, you can contact me at dhaff...@gmail.com

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "plots-spectrometry" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/plots-spectrometry/vdltFiLoR3o/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com.

[Gretchen Gehrke]

Hi Dave, 

I agree that science should be rooted in empirical data supported by logical theory, and I agree that we as a community should speak up and question people's work in a constructive way. That's a group effort though -- there is too much for one person to keep track of, and multiple perspectives and bodies of knowledge are our strength. 

This issue of research culture, and how to develop an open, inviting system in which we constructively critique each other's work, and for what purposes we do so, is a big question. We've had some fits-and-starts with it, and I know several people are putting good thought into developing a framework and system for this. Thank you for bringing up this discussion again. 

Best, 

Gretchen

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 5:43 AM, David haffner sr <dhaff...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[David haffner sr]

Thanks Gretchen.

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "plots-spectrometry" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/plots-spectrometry/vdltFiLoR3o/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to plots-spectrome...@googlegroups.com.