3 ms·

I verified a _lot_ at school. Simple stuff, sure, but it's the method which matters, not the thing you verify. I guess it may depend on the education systems, b

by kalenx 6y ago

I verified a _lot_ at school. Simple stuff, sure, but it's the method which matters, not the thing you verify. I guess it may depend on the education systems, but seeing it as an 'indoctrination system' is just dishonest, given that by _definition_ you want to change the minds of the children. There is no --or so little-- spontaneous learning when you reach something more complicated than the basic action/immediate consequence a toddler uses.

feralimal 6y ago
To all those that are telling me how much verification is going on, I want to offer this very simple and basic question. How was water proven to you to be made up of 2 gases? Please don't refer me to youtube videos where a showman's pop is made, and we see some water droplets from the air condensate on the bottle. I want to see 2 gases being added together and making a liquid, that is water. We are apparently on a planet that is mainly water... surely this isn't too much to ask? You might think this is basic, and it is. If you review this information, you will recognise just how little you actually know.
- godelzilla 6y ago
  And how was the "law of supply and demand" verified? smh
- kalenx 6y ago
  It isn't much to ask at all, but what you describe makes little sense. 1) What's the issue with "showman pop and some water droplets"? What's the difference between producing 1 mL or 1 gallon of water in terms of _verification_? 2) You can verify it in various ways, including obtaining back oxygen and hydrogen from water. You can measure the weight of the water you've used (and derive the number of molecules), and the weight of the gases you obtain (and again check that it matches what you've provided). 3) Sure, your sensors (eyes, ears, etc.) are not accurate/fast enough to literally see two H2 molecules and one O2 molecule creating two H2O. If you feel that this in itself is enough to impede verification then we have an issue. You can always go back to a point where your eyes are enough to validate an hypothesis and build from there, so everything holds. But you seem to be asking that for _every_ scientific proof in our modern world, which is just mischievous.
  - feralimal 6y ago
    I want to see a gas canister that say oxygen, that is tested and proved to be so. I want to see a gas canister that say hydrogen, that is tested and proved to be so. Then I want the gases put into some sort of container, where some sort of process is undertaken, and water is poured out. It should be straightforward, with no trickery or slight of hand trickery. It must be simple to do that surely??! Feel free to post a video.
    - kalenx 6y ago
      It is extremely simple to do that. But you won't accept it. You would say the gas canister containing oxygen to be "unproved", or the ignition source to be "unproved to be so", or the camera to be "unproved to truly reflect the reality", or the container in which the gases are put in "unproved to be empty". You do not really care about knowing, you care about being right. And there's nothing I can do for you on this regard.
      - feralimal 6y ago
        Seriously, post a video of you doing that. Or someone else's. If you think I will refute it whatever the case, what can I do? I can only say that I will watch in good faith. If, as you seem to suggest, I do see issues with the video and evidence, and you don't, what does that tell you about your threshold for the acceptance of what is presented as true to you?
        kalenx 6y ago
        Sure, here's the first youtube result I got: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQaYLbsl33g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQaYLbsl33g > I can only say that I will watch in good faith. You won't. > If, as you seem to suggest, I do see issues with the video and evidence, and you don't, what does that tell you about your threshold for the acceptance of what is presented as true to you? Of course my threshold of acceptance is lower than yours! This whole discussion, my point was that your "threshold of acceptance" is ridiculously, insanely high. For instance, I do think that the BBC guy in this video is acting in good faith. Also, given the two following hypothesis: - Thousands of people around the globe have been putting up complex magic tricks and keep the secret for more than two centuries to make me believe that a gas can burn an produce water; - Hydrogen and oxygen mixed together and ignited produce water vapor. The latter is far, far more likely than the former.
- abawany 6y ago
  I recall doing an experiment in high school where I added a drop of HCl to water and then applied an electric current to the water in the vessel - there were two vents and applying a flame to one of the areas near the bubbling electrodes resulted in a clean flame pop, a signature of hydrogen. Edit0: syntax corrections.

by kalenx 6y ago

feralimal 6y ago

To all those that are telling me how much verification is going on, I want to offer this very simple and basic question. How was water proven to you to be made up of 2 gases? Please don't refer me to youtube videos where a showman's pop is made, and we see some water droplets from the air condensate on the bottle. I want to see 2 gases being added together and making a liquid, that is water. We are apparently on a planet that is mainly water... surely this isn't too much to ask? You might think this is basic, and it is. If you review this information, you will recognise just how little you actually know.

godelzilla 6y ago
And how was the "law of supply and demand" verified? smh
kalenx 6y ago
It isn't much to ask at all, but what you describe makes little sense. 1) What's the issue with "showman pop and some water droplets"? What's the difference between producing 1 mL or 1 gallon of water in terms of _verification_? 2) You can verify it in various ways, including obtaining back oxygen and hydrogen from water. You can measure the weight of the water you've used (and derive the number of molecules), and the weight of the gases you obtain (and again check that it matches what you've provided). 3) Sure, your sensors (eyes, ears, etc.) are not accurate/fast enough to literally see two H2 molecules and one O2 molecule creating two H2O. If you feel that this in itself is enough to impede verification then we have an issue. You can always go back to a point where your eyes are enough to validate an hypothesis and build from there, so everything holds. But you seem to be asking that for _every_ scientific proof in our modern world, which is just mischievous.
- feralimal 6y ago
  I want to see a gas canister that say oxygen, that is tested and proved to be so. I want to see a gas canister that say hydrogen, that is tested and proved to be so. Then I want the gases put into some sort of container, where some sort of process is undertaken, and water is poured out. It should be straightforward, with no trickery or slight of hand trickery. It must be simple to do that surely??! Feel free to post a video.
  - kalenx 6y ago
    It is extremely simple to do that. But you won't accept it. You would say the gas canister containing oxygen to be "unproved", or the ignition source to be "unproved to be so", or the camera to be "unproved to truly reflect the reality", or the container in which the gases are put in "unproved to be empty". You do not really care about knowing, you care about being right. And there's nothing I can do for you on this regard.
    - feralimal 6y ago
      Seriously, post a video of you doing that. Or someone else's. If you think I will refute it whatever the case, what can I do? I can only say that I will watch in good faith. If, as you seem to suggest, I do see issues with the video and evidence, and you don't, what does that tell you about your threshold for the acceptance of what is presented as true to you?
      - kalenx 6y ago
        Sure, here's the first youtube result I got: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQaYLbsl33g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQaYLbsl33g > I can only say that I will watch in good faith. You won't. > If, as you seem to suggest, I do see issues with the video and evidence, and you don't, what does that tell you about your threshold for the acceptance of what is presented as true to you? Of course my threshold of acceptance is lower than yours! This whole discussion, my point was that your "threshold of acceptance" is ridiculously, insanely high. For instance, I do think that the BBC guy in this video is acting in good faith. Also, given the two following hypothesis: - Thousands of people around the globe have been putting up complex magic tricks and keep the secret for more than two centuries to make me believe that a gas can burn an produce water; - Hydrogen and oxygen mixed together and ignited produce water vapor. The latter is far, far more likely than the former.
abawany 6y ago
I recall doing an experiment in high school where I added a drop of HCl to water and then applied an electric current to the water in the vessel - there were two vents and applying a flame to one of the areas near the bubbling electrodes resulted in a clean flame pop, a signature of hydrogen. Edit0: syntax corrections.