First-time direct proof of chemical reactions in particulates

"Researchers at the Paul Scherrer Institute PSI have developed a new method to analyse particulate matter more precisely than ever before. With its help, they disproved an established doctrine: that molecules in aerosols undergo no further chemical transformations because they are enclosed in other suspended particulate matter."

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-03/psi-fdp031220.php

Just an exampl of settled science - that wasn't.

lee wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 8:45pm:

Just an exampl of settled science - that wasn't.

I’m sure that we have all seen it happen at one point or another. Two people are debating about some scientific topic and the person who is opposed to the mainstream scientific view gets backed into a corner by an opponent who is wielding numerous peer-reviewed studies. So, how does he get out of it? Simple, he merely utters the words, “well scientists have been wrong in the past, so they might be wrong now,” and having spoken those irrefutable words, the debate ends, and the anti-scientist leaves, thinking himself victorious. In reality, all he did was use a logically invalid cop-out that does nothing other than demonstrate how truly weak and indefensible his position is.

The first problem with this argument is simply that it is a guilt by association fallacy (or ad hominem depending on exactly how it is used). Just because scientists have been wrong in that past does not mean that you can blindly reject all evidence and arbitrarily assume that they are wrong now. So right off the bat, the rules of logic tell us that this argument is no good.

The second problem is one of the most important. Of course scientists have been wrong in the past, because science is inherently a process of proving other scientists wrong. That’s how science works. It would be a terrible thing if scientists were never wrong because that would mean that science had come to a standstill and was no longer advancing. Here’s the important thing though, scientists are always proved wrong by other scientists! Major scientific principles aren’t overthrown by people with no scientific training sitting on their couch and speculating! New scientific discoveries are made by scientists, not bloggers, not people who have never set foot in a lab. There is no universe in which someone’s uneducated opinion is just as valid as the results of countless peer-reviewed studies.

https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/01/30/but-scientists-have-been-wrong-in-the-past/

Oh dear lee. looks like you've caught yourself up in another logical fallacy

Do us a favor lee
Go to the top of a tall building and jump off - after all, the theory of gravity might be settled science that wasn't - and tell us how you went.  ;)

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 10:16am:

Simple, he merely utters the words, “well scientists have been wrong in the past, so they might be wrong now,” and having spoken those irrefutable words, the debate ends, and the anti-scientist leaves, thinking himself victorious. In reality, all he did was use a logically invalid cop-out that does nothing other than demonstrate how truly weak and indefensible his position is.

So you are saying the article is wrong because settled science says so? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 10:16am:

Oh dear lee. looks like you've caught yourself up in another logical fallacy

No petal, I was quoting science that said the settled science was wrong. You do understand; don't you petal?

"they disproved an established doctrine" aka settled science. Not my opinion - scientific opinion.

Do try to keep up. ;)

lee wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 12:50pm:

So you are saying the article is wrong because settled science says so?

Where did I state the article was wrong?



lee wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 12:50pm:

No petal, I was quoting science that said the settled science was wrong. You do understand; don't you petal? "they disproved an established doctrine" aka settled science. Not my opinion - scientific opinion. Do try to keep up. ;)

So why did you use the tern "settled science" when it doesn't appear anywhere in the article?
Of course it's because you like being vague and not actually holding a position on anything.
You also clearly failed to understand my previous post  ;D ;D

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 1:59pm:

Where did I state the article was wrong?

because you were the one talking about logical fallacy petal.


The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 1:59pm:

So why did you use the tern "settled science" when it doesn't appear anywhere in the article?

So established doctrine is not settled science? ;D ;D ;D

"Doctrine

a : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief

e : something that is taught"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine

So what you are arguing is that something that is taught in science is not settled, as far as science can ever be settled? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 1:59pm:

Of course it's because you like being vague and not actually holding a position on anything.

So I said an established doctrine was settled science and that was not holding a position? ;D ;D ;D ;D


The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 1:59pm:

You also clearly failed to understand my previous post

Oh I understood it petal. It was directed at me making a logical fallacy. But naturally you were wrong. As usual. ;)

lee wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 2:20pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15th, 2020 at 1:59pm: Where did I state the article was wrong? because you were the one talking about logical fallacy petal.

I'll ask once again. Where did I state that the article was wrong?
The logical fallacy comment was directed at you.

You have also evaded answering my question about why you used the term "settled science" when it doesn't appear anywhere in the article.
Come on lee, have a backbone for once in your life and tell us what you are trying to imply with this thread..  ;)

I do enjoy watching you back peddle and squirm  ;D ;D

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 2:32pm:

I'll ask once again. Where did I state that the article was wrong?

So you admit the article is correct but you don't accept it overturns the "established doctrine" aka settled science? Do I have that correct?


The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 2:32pm:

You have also evaded answering my question about why you used the term "settled science" when it doesn't appear anywhere in the article.

I haven't evaded it petal. I have explained it. Obviously that was too deep for you. ;)


The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 2:32pm:

Come on lee, have a backbone for once in your life and tell us what you are trying to imply with this thread.

Oh dear. You just can't accept the statement at face value.

never mind petal.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 10:16am:

lee wrote on Mar 14th, 2020 at 8:45pm: Just an exampl of settled science - that wasn't. I’m sure that we have all seen it happen at one point or another. Two people are debating about some scientific topic and the person who is opposed to the mainstream scientific view gets backed into a corner by an opponent who is wielding numerous peer-reviewed studies. So, how does he get out of it? Simple, he merely utters the words, “well scientists have been wrong in the past, so they might be wrong now,” and having spoken those irrefutable words, the debate ends, and the anti-scientist leaves, thinking himself victorious. In reality, all he did was use a logically invalid cop-out that does nothing other than demonstrate how truly weak and indefensible his position is. The first problem with this argument is simply that it is a guilt by association fallacy (or ad hominem depending on exactly how it is used). Just because scientists have been wrong in that past does not mean that you can blindly reject all evidence and arbitrarily assume that they are wrong now. So right off the bat, the rules of logic tell us that this argument is no good. The second problem is one of the most important. Of course scientists have been wrong in the past, because science is inherently a process of proving other scientists wrong. That’s how science works. It would be a terrible thing if scientists were never wrong because that would mean that science had come to a standstill and was no longer advancing. Here’s the important thing though, scientists are always proved wrong by other scientists! Major scientific principles aren’t overthrown by people with no scientific training sitting on their couch and speculating! New scientific discoveries are made by scientists, not bloggers, not people who have never set foot in a lab. There is no universe in which someone’s uneducated opinion is just as valid as the results of countless peer-reviewed studies. https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/01/30/but-scientists-have-been-wrong-in-the-past/ Oh dear lee. looks like you've caught yourself up in another logical fallacy Do us a favor lee Go to the top of a tall building and jump off - after all, the theory of gravity might be settled science that wasn't - and tell us how you went.  ;)

thanks for that barnacle....

I have been saying SCIENTIST HAVE BEEN WRONG MANY TIMES for years....so why do people  believe every word on GW....


:) :) :)


but some seem too they never question  ::)

lee wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 2:39pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15th, 2020 at 2:32pm: I'll ask once again. Where did I state that the article was wrong? So you admit the article is correct but you don't accept it overturns the "established doctrine" aka settled science? Do I have that correct? The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15th, 2020 at 2:32pm: You have also evaded answering my question about why you used the term "settled science" when it doesn't appear anywhere in the article. I haven't evaded it petal. I have explained it. Obviously that was too deep for you. ;) The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15th, 2020 at 2:32pm: Come on lee, have a backbone for once in your life and tell us what you are trying to imply with this thread. Oh dear. You just can't accept the statement at face value. never mind petal.

lee he is admitting

SCIENTIST GET IT WRONG>>>>



thats hilarious.

lee wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 2:39pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15th, 2020 at 2:32pm: I'll ask once again. Where did I state that the article was wrong? So you admit the article is correct but you don't accept it overturns the "established doctrine" aka settled science? Do I have that correct?

No you don't.


lee wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 2:39pm:

Oh dear. You just can't accept the statement at face value. never mind petal.

Not when you use the term "settled science" when it doesn't appear anywhere in the article
And not with your track record

You really are a spineless jellyfish  ;D

cods wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 2:40pm:

thanks for that barnacle.... I have been saying SCIENTIST HAVE BEEN WRONG MANY TIMES for years....so why do people  believe every word on GW.... :) :) :) but some seem too they never question  ::)

Cods you are way out of your depth here
You have obviously completely misunderstood my post  ;D ;D

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 3:01pm:

Not when you use the term "settled science" when it doesn't appear anywhere in the article

But you agree that the previous theory was settled science? ;)


The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 3:01pm:

You really are a spineless jellyfish

Poor petal. reduced to name calling again. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 3:13pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15th, 2020 at 3:01pm: Not when you use the term "settled science" when it doesn't appear anywhere in the article But you agree that the previous theory was settled science? ;)

More backpedaling and obfuscation.
You are such a coward that you won't even admit why you used the term.
You are hopeless lee


lee wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 3:13pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15th, 2020 at 3:01pm: You really are a spineless jellyfish Poor petal. reduced to name calling again. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Hypocrite  ;D ;D ;D

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 3:18pm:

More backpedaling and obfuscation.

No petal. merely pointing out yours.


The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 3:18pm:

You are such a coward that you won't even admit why you used the term.

precisely because established doctrine is known as settled science. Did you think it an allegory for something else petal?



The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 3:18pm:

Hypocrite

Poor petal also shows his lack of knowledge.

" Petal

What does Petal mean?

Petal
Term of endearment
Often used to address strangers."

http://www.britishslang.co.uk/slang/petal

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 3:02pm:

cods wrote on Mar 15th, 2020 at 2:40pm: thanks for that barnacle.... I have been saying SCIENTIST HAVE BEEN WRONG MANY TIMES for years....so why do people  believe every word on GW.... :) :) :) but some seem too they never question  ::) Cods you are way out of your depth here You have obviously completely misunderstood my post  ;D ;D

not at all your link says it all..

ok ok back peddle as all lefties do... we are used to it..

fantastic
yippee :o :o

The fire alarm sounds. Lee is sitting drinking his cocoa in a corner of the RSL.

-You have to evacuate, sir!
- No I don't. The science is not settled!  You can't prove that this table where I am sitting will be affected by the fire. I have at least a 5 percent chance of surviving, so I'm staying right here!

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 21^st, 2020 at 2:02pm:

The fire alarm sounds. Lee is sitting drinking his cocoa in a corner of the RSL.

poor petal. Trying so hard to be relevant.

Do you agree "established doctrine" in science is "settled science"?