so you think we pretty much know it all about chemistry? No even the most basic thing

...is subject to revision. We cannot be sure our most axiomic fundamentals of chemistry are right. like the simplist of chemical bonds. like the charge distribution of an atom with one proton in it. we don't even know that.but we're always pronouncing this or that scientific problem is solved beyond hope of any new discovery.

phys.org...

Previously, researchers assumed that positively charged hydrogen could only create hydrogen bonds with negatively charged elements like oxygen, fluorine and nitrogen. That positive hydrogen can also be bound to positive phosphorus opens up a world of fresh insight into biological processes. It also provides the basis for an entirely new understanding of how atomic charge works.

yeah. so what...this has been taught in schools for over 100 years. it basic textbook stuff. but it was wrong. not that hydrogen bonds normally act this way but that they could act any other way at all. that was forbidden. until it wasn't. So if anyone speaks of "settled science" to you: i suggest you kick their ass for their arrogance and ignorance.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

So if anyone speaks of "settled science" to you. i suggest you kick their ass for their arrogance and ignorance.

You mean the world isn't flat after all?

Thanks for the enlightenment, science is as arrogant as religion sometimes.

Science is always open to revision and change, it is part of the scientific method.

I applaud these researchers for their work in furthering our knowledge of atomic charges.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
...is subject to revision.

Of course it is. That's what makes science work. If you want revealed truth, you're looking for religion - that's a few aisles over.

We cannot be sure our most axiomic fundamentals of chemistry are right. like the simplist of chemical bonds. like the charge distribution of an atom with one proton in it. we don't even know that.but we're always pronouncing this or that scientific problem is solved beyond hope of any new discovery.

Yet, you look around and everywhere you look is evidence we DO in fact understand fundamentals of chemistry. And I don't think you've ever seen anyone pronounce that any problem is solved beyond hope of any new discovery.

yeah. so what...this has been taught in schools for over 100 years. it basic textbook stuff. but it was wrong. not that hydrogen bonds normally act this way but that they could act any other way at all. that was forbidden. until it wasn't. So if anyone speaks of "settled science" to you. i suggest you kick thier ass for their arrogance and ignorance.

Some things are pretty well in the bag, and rarely is there any point in re-addressing it. Like the perpetual motion machines I suspect you'd like to be real. However, if there ever IS any evidence they exist, real evidence that is, it'll be examined just as this was. You see this as "Oh, they don't know EVERYTHING, therefore, magic", while I see it as "Even a basic tenet can be questioned and our understanding revised". It doesn't mean everything was wrong, just that there was a spot you missed.

a reply to: Bedlam

Yet, you look around and everywhere you look is evidence we DO in fact understand fundamentals of chemistry. And I don't think you've ever seen anyone pronounce that any problem is solved beyond hope of any new discovery.

Because we use something does not mean we understand it. A theory should be mesaured by its usefulness but that does not make it right. Working on falsificaiton science does not truly deal in facts which im sure you know.

The problem I have is it is often talked of as facf where as we are dealing with limitied models often reductionist by nature and like other philophies makes presumption and limits are views of reality.

no i see a bunch of it's settled science move along. subsequently become unsettled. or i see a lot of "nosee-ums" topics within the body of science that are ignored because they are unsettling.

climate change it's settled science!

chemistry is rather benign in comparison.

or GRT actually predicts a connection between gravity and electromagnetism but that's inconvenient so we'll pretend it doesn't exist.

or the GRT solutions that allow stuff we don't want to be real so we'll say those are just mathematical artifacts with no real world basis.

it's not scientists doing science that are wrong. that's actually impossible. it's scientists falling into dogma that are wrong.

Im reminded of this clip from Its Always Sunny whenever someone talks about scientific facts



Awful quality vid but still funny and true if absolutely ridiculous

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
...is subject to revision.

Of course it is. That's what makes science work. If you want revealed truth, you're looking for religion - that's a few aisles over.

We cannot be sure our most axiomic fundamentals of chemistry are right. like the simplist of chemical bonds. like the charge distribution of an atom with one proton in it. we don't even know that.but we're always pronouncing this or that scientific problem is solved beyond hope of any new discovery.

Yet, you look around and everywhere you look is evidence we DO in fact understand fundamentals of chemistry. And I don't think you've ever seen anyone pronounce that any problem is solved beyond hope of any new discovery.

yeah. so what...this has been taught in schools for over 100 years. it basic textbook stuff. but it was wrong. not that hydrogen bonds normally act this way but that they could act any other way at all. that was forbidden. until it wasn't. So if anyone speaks of "settled science" to you. i suggest you kick thier ass for their arrogance and ignorance.

Some things are pretty well in the bag, and rarely is there any point in re-addressing it. Like the perpetual motion machines I suspect you'd like to be real. However, if there ever IS any evidence they exist, real evidence that is, it'll be examined just as this was. You see this as "Oh, they don't know EVERYTHING, therefore, magic", while I see it as "Even a basic tenet can be questioned and our understanding revised". It doesn't mean everything was wrong, just that there was a spot you missed.

you sound like someone whose butt hurts in sympathy for those on the receiving end of a kick in the pants. :innocent:

a reply to: stormbringer1701

You seem to misunderstand a key tenet of science: everything is subject to change. Your characterization of science is inaccurate and not how academic research is actually conducted.

a reply to: [post=19112464]intrptr[/post

Not science it self but there are those who are more dogmatic and just as arrogant as any religious beliefs I've seen.. as soon as anyone questions the dogma of evolution and dares to put forth an opposing alternative to the "theory". The evolution is fact brigade come in force with verbal attacks and jabs at intelligence and beliefs..

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: stormbringer1701

You seem to misunderstand a key tenet of science: everything is subject to change. Your characterization of science is inaccurate and not how academic research is actually conducted.

it is not me that misunderstands that tenet. not by a long shot. that shoe does not fit. i am mocking those that live by the expression "it's settled science" from politicians to polemics to more than a few scientists who should by definition know better than to let that cross their lips.

a reply to: HooHaa

It's not by coincidence that the nearly exclusively the people I ever hear complaining about the "dogma" of science are people who hold unscientific beliefs. You are a good example of that if you sincerely believe that evolution is not supported by a substantial amount of objective evidence.

Dara O'Briain put it best in his response to people who use the strawman argument "science thinks it has all of the answers, but science doesn't know everything"

At the 1:50 mark of the video below:

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Who cares what politicians or laypeople say? They are not scientists. That's like complaining about fluid dynamics based on what the cashier down Walmart says.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Who cares what politicians or laypeople say? They are not scientists. That's like complaining about fluid dynamics based on what the cashier down Walmart says.

the key is it's ruinous no matter who says it. additionally it's not always some nonscientific onlooker that says it.

a reply to: purplemer

... it is often talked of as fact where as we are dealing with limited models, often reductionist by nature, and like other philosophies makes presumptions and limits our views of reality (edited for typos).

That's the main point of contention that gets people who've experienced things unknown by science to disavow the whole endeavor. As is pointed out, science is done by people, and people are fallible and subject to their own dogmas. Science itself is a flexible, quite beautiful tool (and philosophy) that has done quite well for us as a whole.

Science has trouble being applied to things that cannot be measured and experimented on and some equate that quality of elusiveness with non existence. All the weird things we experience will one day fall under the scrutiny of science... it just needs some connective steps and a more holistic approach to make them understood and known to the greater community, is all.

And, of course, there are bad scientists who won't even consider some hypotheses because they believe it cannot be possible... and that is a poor premise and not science... that is more of a belief.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

It completely depends on the context. If there is a scientific issue of contention, arguments are made, evidence comes in and the scientists who were wrong concede. The matter is settled. That doesn't mean that future evidence cannot change that consensus. You're playing a game of semantics.

None of this has anything to do with your complete mischaracterization that somehow certain issues are permanently "settled" due to "dogma". You've basically made up this strawman characterization to attack a methodology that I'm not convinced you have any real understanding or experience of.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: HooHaa

It's not by coincidence that the nearly exclusively the people I ever hear complaining about the "dogma" of science are people who hold unscientific beliefs. You are a good example of that if you sincerely believe that evolution is not supported by a substantial amount of objective evidence.

you have never never ever seen me say anything (other than a wisecrack not intended to be taken seriously and obviously so) about evolution not being a real thing. that is a strawman. when i say X people (libs, sports teams or whatever) are proof more complex creatures do not arise from simpler creatures but visa versa; you cannot take that as an anti evolution theory remark. not and be taken seriously yourself.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Look at the username I was replying to.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
you sound like someone whose butt hurts in sympathy for those on the receiving end of a kick in the pants.

:innocent:

No, but YOU sound like you are probably the sort that believes in revealed truth, and doesn't understand how discovered truth works. Catholic, are you?