3 ms·

I don’t really take this as a language debate though. It clearly is about the fact that people don’t understand what an oxidizer is at a chemical level. Someo

I don’t really take this as a language debate though. It clearly is about the fact that people don’t understand what an oxidizer is at a chemical level. Someone who says the following isn’t just using language inaccurately, it actually shows a fundamental misunderstanding of combustion: > pure hydrogen doesn’t burn. It needs an oxidizer—like the oxygen in air. That statement, no matter how you take it, leaves an assumption that other gases might burn like hydrogen without oxygen, which is again a fundamental misunderstanding of chemistry. In addition calling something “self oxidizing” doesn’t make sense. There are always mixtures of fuel and oxidizers… whether those are gas and fuel, solid and fuel, mixed in gunpowder form, mixed as gasoline and air in a carburetor, etc. So if I supply you a balloon with the proper stoichiometric ratio of gasoline and air, is that “self-oxidizing”? If so then everything is self oxidizing. And while I would agree that people do refer to fusion as “burning” I actually think this is a again a prime example of people not understanding the underlying physics. Most people don’t understand how fusion works, so calling it “burning” is a lazy way to conceptualize what the sun is doing. Scientists will sometimes use “burning hydrogen” when talking about nucleosynthesis, but they assume the audience of other scientists understand the difference between combustion and fusion. When articles like the original post are talking to the layperson in this manner however, it does nothing but lead to more scientific illiteracy. A perfect example is one of the above comments: > There are rumours that because of this fact, that the Hindenburg disaster was not from natural causes. If we don’t communicate science effectively then we end up with conspiracies and pseudoscience. Words are tools. They should be used wisely.

gpm 5y ago
> I don’t really take this as a language debate though. It is when "burning" just means "fast reaction that creates something like a flame"... the vast majority of your post relies on a definition where it does not. > That statement, no matter how you take it, leaves an assumption that other gases might burn like hydrogen without oxygen, There are at least two ways to read this statement where that is incorrect. One is to use the merriam-webster definition (see another one of my comments in this thread where I tracked that down) of burning (which includes things like H2O2 decomposing) instead of your definition. The other is to include non-pure gasses, like a mixture of H2 and O2. Or if you somehow managed to vaporize gunpowder without it igniting. A potential third is if you managed to make a chemical with an oxidizing agent on one end, and a reducing agent on the other... which now that I think about it sounds technically possible (if very difficult). > And while I would agree that people do refer to fusion as “burning” I actually think this is a again a prime example of people not understanding the underlying physics. Fusion researches call it burning, so with respect I think you're just wrong, they just understand the word burning to mean something other than what you do. Consider also that things "burn up" upon re-entry from space (I'm sure anything oxidizable oxidizes, but mostly that means they vaporize), that you get rope burn, that ablative heatshields burn up, ... (I'm sure I could come up with more given some time) > If we don’t communicate science effectively then we end up with conspiracies and pseudoscience. Words are tools. They should be used wisely. I agree, but I think you are doing the exact opposite of what you want to to achieve this goal. Redefining words so that they have a cleaner scientific definition makes it easier to talk about things precisely within the "in-crowd" who have accepted your redefinition. It confuses, annoys, and generally makes the "out" crowd feel stupid. That confusion makes it easier to get them to accept conspiracies and pseudoscience, making them feel stupid makes them less likely to listen to you (as a whole group) when you try and show them why they are wrong. This is counter-productive. This is a common trend in "academic language", and I really think it does untold damage in peoples trust in these illiterate experts who keep insisting on facts that are simply wrong in the language called English that everyone else speaks (Peanuts are in fact nuts, Tomatoes are in fact vegetables and not fruits, and so on and so forth).
- crazydoggers 5y ago
  All I can say is that your scientific knowledge on the subjects are incorrect. I’m not trying to put down anyone in the “out crowd”. It’s simply that if we want to talk about scientific subjects, then we need to use precise language. Math has its own language. Science uses math in many areas, which removes ambiguity. Unfortunately English and other languages are the best we have when communicating other topics, which is why it’s best to be very precise. I understand all the points you make and I agree with some of them in many respects (I was an undergraduate English major) It’s simply that the use of imprecise English terms when talking about science specifically with the general public often does more harm than good. For instance: > A potential third is if you managed to make a chemical with an oxidizing agent on one end, and a reducing agent on the other... which now that I think about it sounds technically possible (if very difficult). This lacks an understanding of redox reaction chemistry, since it’s not possible. Salt is NaCl, the Cl being an oxidizer and the Na being a reducer. You can’t cause salt to self combust. It’s just not possible. In this case we need to turn to more precise language, and the use of chemical formulas to explain why. It’s the perfect example of how in plain English something like you described sounds possible, but comes from a confusion introduced by the language. As a further example let’s say you mean that the oxidizer is on a remote far end of the molecule. Then what your are again talking about is that molecule acting as an oxidizer. If you want to imagine some large molecule with a strong reducing component on one end and a strong oxidizing component in the other, that also can’t “self oxidize” because it would be in constant reaction with itself. (To be even more specific requires even more specific language that is too much for one reply.. for example you can have molecules that get reduced and oxidized in something called a disproportionation reaction, but you’ve basically got multiple reactions happening with multiple products) > I really think it does untold damage in peoples trust in these illiterate experts who keep insisting on facts that are simply wrong in the language called English that everyone else speaks. Peanuts are legumes in a biological sense. It’s an important distinction because it matters about the types of proteins that peanuts contain (and tree nuts do not). This is due to bacteria in the roots that are able to fix nitrogen. So again, this is not about academic language… it’s about being clear and precise when it matters to talk about how the world actually is rather than how we perceive it. Edit: > It confuses, annoys, and generally makes the "out" crowd feel stupid. That confusion makes it easier to get them to accept conspiracies and pseudoscience, making them feel stupid makes them less likely to listen to you (as a whole group) when you try and show them why they are wrong. This is counter-productive. I think there are many reasons for this, but I don’t think using clear and precise language is to blame. I think for one our society puts a stigma on saying “I don’t know”. No one should feel stupid for saying that, since it’s the start of all knowledge, and as a society we need to teach that. I also think that the education system still does a poor job on science education in general. So very smart people end up unable to decide between “purveyors of knowledge”. If we judge arguments solely on their oratorical value, it’s easy to be mislead. A great change to our education system would be better teaching of logic and biases, something like the following: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
DonHopkins 5y ago
Another relevant example of the English language referring to burning that doesn't involve oxidation is "flaming", as referenced in the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html >Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. But who am I to throw water on your fire? ;)

gpm 5y ago

> I don’t really take this as a language debate though. It is when "burning" just means "fast reaction that creates something like a flame"... the vast majority of your post relies on a definition where it does not. > That statement, no matter how you take it, leaves an assumption that other gases might burn like hydrogen without oxygen, There are at least two ways to read this statement where that is incorrect. One is to use the merriam-webster definition (see another one of my comments in this thread where I tracked that down) of burning (which includes things like H2O2 decomposing) instead of your definition. The other is to include non-pure gasses, like a mixture of H2 and O2. Or if you somehow managed to vaporize gunpowder without it igniting. A potential third is if you managed to make a chemical with an oxidizing agent on one end, and a reducing agent on the other... which now that I think about it sounds technically possible (if very difficult). > And while I would agree that people do refer to fusion as “burning” I actually think this is a again a prime example of people not understanding the underlying physics. Fusion researches call it burning, so with respect I think you're just wrong, they just understand the word burning to mean something other than what you do. Consider also that things "burn up" upon re-entry from space (I'm sure anything oxidizable oxidizes, but mostly that means they vaporize), that you get rope burn, that ablative heatshields burn up, ... (I'm sure I could come up with more given some time) > If we don’t communicate science effectively then we end up with conspiracies and pseudoscience. Words are tools. They should be used wisely. I agree, but I think you are doing the exact opposite of what you want to to achieve this goal. Redefining words so that they have a cleaner scientific definition makes it easier to talk about things precisely within the "in-crowd" who have accepted your redefinition. It confuses, annoys, and generally makes the "out" crowd feel stupid. That confusion makes it easier to get them to accept conspiracies and pseudoscience, making them feel stupid makes them less likely to listen to you (as a whole group) when you try and show them why they are wrong. This is counter-productive. This is a common trend in "academic language", and I really think it does untold damage in peoples trust in these illiterate experts who keep insisting on facts that are simply wrong in the language called English that everyone else speaks (Peanuts are in fact nuts, Tomatoes are in fact vegetables and not fruits, and so on and so forth).

crazydoggers 5y ago
All I can say is that your scientific knowledge on the subjects are incorrect. I’m not trying to put down anyone in the “out crowd”. It’s simply that if we want to talk about scientific subjects, then we need to use precise language. Math has its own language. Science uses math in many areas, which removes ambiguity. Unfortunately English and other languages are the best we have when communicating other topics, which is why it’s best to be very precise. I understand all the points you make and I agree with some of them in many respects (I was an undergraduate English major) It’s simply that the use of imprecise English terms when talking about science specifically with the general public often does more harm than good. For instance: > A potential third is if you managed to make a chemical with an oxidizing agent on one end, and a reducing agent on the other... which now that I think about it sounds technically possible (if very difficult). This lacks an understanding of redox reaction chemistry, since it’s not possible. Salt is NaCl, the Cl being an oxidizer and the Na being a reducer. You can’t cause salt to self combust. It’s just not possible. In this case we need to turn to more precise language, and the use of chemical formulas to explain why. It’s the perfect example of how in plain English something like you described sounds possible, but comes from a confusion introduced by the language. As a further example let’s say you mean that the oxidizer is on a remote far end of the molecule. Then what your are again talking about is that molecule acting as an oxidizer. If you want to imagine some large molecule with a strong reducing component on one end and a strong oxidizing component in the other, that also can’t “self oxidize” because it would be in constant reaction with itself. (To be even more specific requires even more specific language that is too much for one reply.. for example you can have molecules that get reduced and oxidized in something called a disproportionation reaction, but you’ve basically got multiple reactions happening with multiple products) > I really think it does untold damage in peoples trust in these illiterate experts who keep insisting on facts that are simply wrong in the language called English that everyone else speaks. Peanuts are legumes in a biological sense. It’s an important distinction because it matters about the types of proteins that peanuts contain (and tree nuts do not). This is due to bacteria in the roots that are able to fix nitrogen. So again, this is not about academic language… it’s about being clear and precise when it matters to talk about how the world actually is rather than how we perceive it. Edit: > It confuses, annoys, and generally makes the "out" crowd feel stupid. That confusion makes it easier to get them to accept conspiracies and pseudoscience, making them feel stupid makes them less likely to listen to you (as a whole group) when you try and show them why they are wrong. This is counter-productive. I think there are many reasons for this, but I don’t think using clear and precise language is to blame. I think for one our society puts a stigma on saying “I don’t know”. No one should feel stupid for saying that, since it’s the start of all knowledge, and as a society we need to teach that. I also think that the education system still does a poor job on science education in general. So very smart people end up unable to decide between “purveyors of knowledge”. If we judge arguments solely on their oratorical value, it’s easy to be mislead. A great change to our education system would be better teaching of logic and biases, something like the following: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

DonHopkins 5y ago

Another relevant example of the English language referring to burning that doesn't involve oxidation is "flaming", as referenced in the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html >Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. But who am I to throw water on your fire? ;)