4 ms·
Then you can enlighten us because as far as we can tell what we think you are saying is the author's discussion of conservation of mass has nothing to do with t
by mowenz 9y ago
Then you can enlighten us because as far as we can tell what we think you are saying is the author's discussion of conservation of mass has nothing to do with the Law of Conservation of Mass (as opposed to some mystic qualities of matter believed prior to the discovery of this law of nature--in classical physics). Don't just point to the epaulettes and tell him to be respectful--it's ok to question authority (granted it was done a little bit presumptiously, you are right there, but I'd recommend letting it go--be the bigger person and be the teacher).
- pvg 9y agoI'm not 'pointing to epaulettes. I am pointing out the silly and unwarranted assumption Frank Wilczek is unaware of the basic, Wikipedia-page-level history of the science in question. I think it's obvious and a given that he is. If you don't think that's the case, fair enough but it's up to you to find some concrete way to support that rather odd view - it's not for me to refute it from first principles.
- mowenz 9y agoWe're not asking you to defend this physicist. There's an obviously confusing bit about conservation of mass here, which lead to the user citing the Law of Conservation of Mass, that I already asked about, and which you are now ignoring. That's the thing to focus on, not on Frank Wilczek. We already know the poster (unwittingly) was a bit presumptious, but in my opinion I think it would be better to focus on the ideas and let the presumptiousness just slide.
- pvg 9y agoWhat's the confusing bit?
- mowenz 9y agoWhat's remarkable about conservation of mass in the author's example that's not already formulized in the Law of Conservation of Mass?
- pvg 9y agoWhich law? You mentioned Lavoisier and I think someone else already covered this well. It's hard to figure out what your question is from your strident defense of 'someone is being an ass on messageboards'.
- mowenz 9y agoI think you're taking taking it personally, and beginning to use inflammatory language. I think you are thinking emotionally about this and that is why you are misinterpreting my thoughts. Wiczek himself thinks it's an unintuitive notion to question such an assumpion. Yes the poster didn't pose it as a question. We already agree that is presumptious, and a mistake. Where we disagree is the bigger mistake is in not explaining the poster's confusion. I don't think you or anyone is being an "ass." Let's take a cooling off period from this so we don't get upset over some small disagreement on the value of deferring to faith in authority.
- pvg 9y agoWhat is the thing you found confusing that you wanted to ask about. I'm not in the slightest bit upset to think someone is being an ass. Or, as in your case, a condescending twit. I'm just curious about this supposed question.
- mowenz 9y agoYou don't need to use offensive language, or call me a condescending twit. That's out of order. The question is stated more than once in this thread and has already been adressed by others--this much you have even said yourself. Calm down.
- yequalsx 9y agoI tend to give the benefit of the doubt to experts in such situations. While I too thought of the Law of Conservation of Mass and wondered why the author didn't think of it I also know this means that most likely it is I who is lacking knowledge in this case. It is highly unlikely that I know something about mass that an expert doesn't know. Rather than linking to Wikipedia the question ought to have been asked, "what does he mean when he writes this?" Instead amelius says he should read Wikipedia. Let's not pretend that our superficial understanding matches the expert's understanding or that we can teach him something new by citing Wikipedia. If we can think of a point that the author seemingly misses it is almost surely because we are the ones not understanding something.
- mowenz 9y agoWe actually don't disagree here; at least not on the points you listed. It appears you are misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. While we both agree it is reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt to experts, and it wasn't good to be a bit presumptiois either, the issue is that we should still never answer by just pointing to the epaulettes of the expert--especially in this case where there is an obvious confusion. I don't believe this physicist would be offended by Amelius' post, and if an authority was offended by such a minor transgression and first unwilling to provide an explanation--as was the case here--and sought to assert authority instead of through explanation and through epaulettes, we should further question that authority, always. We could next time just say: 'here is why you are confused, and you should have wondered why if you happened to notice the writer's accomplishment.'
- pvg 9y agoThe poster never said they were confused. They implied the author was confused. You seem really keen on berating others about 'epaulettes' while taking it on faith the poster was actually asking a question, rather than being a butthead. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. How on earth is anyone supposed to figure out what question is being asked in the in the intricate disguise of being a butthead?
- 9y ago