3 ms·

> All I can say is that your scientific knowledge on the subjects are incorrect. I doubt that, at least to the extent it's been used in this discussion. > Th

by gpm 5y ago

> All I can say is that your scientific knowledge on the subjects are incorrect. I doubt that, at least to the extent it's been used in this discussion. > 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. I agree it doesn't occur with salt, that doesn't mean it can't happen. 2 Sn2+ → Sn4+ + Sn looks to be an example. I was actually imagining something more along the lines of H3C-CH2-CH2-CF3 managing to have the F3 end oxidize the H3 end (I strongly suspect that specific example doesn't work) - I'll ask the chemists in the house if they know of any such reactions tomorrow since Google isn't being much use... but it's certainly seems like it should be able to. > 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. Agreed > So again, this is not about academic language Choosing to try and label "peanuts" as not "nuts" is. Introducing the phrase "tree nuts" is a much better way to be clear and precise, because you aren't trying to declare things that use to be nuts, not nuts anymore, and hoping that everyone will go along with it.

gpm 5y ago
Re your edit > but I don’t think using clear and precise language is to blame It's not the use of clear and precise language which is to blame, it's the attempt to redefine existing imprecise language in an incompatible way to make it precise that is to blame. I'm all for adding a discussion of logic to math, and fallacies/biases to some sort of civics/philosophy style course. I don't think that's going to solve the problem that trying to redefine words out under people doesn't go very well though. It's not a logic problem, because logic relies on the definitions being agreed upon, and what you have here is one group trying to change the definitions in a way that makes everyone else wrong.
- crazydoggers 5y ago
  I agree with you here. But from my perspective I think that’s exactly what the article is doing. They’re talking about hydrogen burning in imprecise language and then they mix in oxidizers, a word with only a scientific definition (oxygen being officially named and discovered by Lavoisier in the 1700s) And then when scientists do invent new words so they don’t “redefine words out under people” they’re called snobs. Its why burning usually is talked about specifically as combustion if there’s any chance of confusion. For scientists it’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation. I just think theres room to be precise and I do think it has value. Trying to understand one another can be hard… miscommunication sometimes result in horrible results. And science education and communication to the lay person has been an unsolved problem since antiquity when then Library of Alexandria got burned down by an angry mob. I still think we can all benefit from talking things over, trying to be open minded and having civil discussions like we’re doing right here. Communicating clearly never seems like a bad thing to me.
crazydoggers 5y ago
> 2 Sn2+ → Sn4+ + Sn This isn’t a redox reaction though. Those are tin ions in equilibrium with each other.. so no combustion. > I'll ask the chemists in the house if they know of any such reactions tomorrow since Google isn't being much use I’d be interested what you find out, my chemistry knowledge has aged… theres always stuff I don’t know! Edit: Yep you’re correct it is considered a redox, but not combustion.
- gpm 5y ago
  > This isn’t a redox reaction though. Those are tin ions in equilibrium with each other.. so no combustion. I agree I wouldn't call this example combustion (which is typically required to be highly exothermic and therefore not easily reversible), but I believe it is a redox reaction. It's the transfer of electrons from one ion to another, which meets the definition I was taught. Wikipedia seems to agree, both with my definition of redox reaction [1], and that this is one [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox [2] (See Introduction and History): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disproportionation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disproportionation
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gpm 5y ago
  > I’d be interested what you find out So they (two chemistry PhD students) both agree that it should be possible, but don't have any great examples. They point at disproponation as the right class of reactions (where I got Sn2+ from). They agree that the different ends of a hydrocarbon can react in a redox reaction, but at least for common chemicals it's usually a slow reaction. For more combustion like examples what I got was "maybe look at peroxides" and "maybe caro's acid" (H2SO5). I can't find anyone who actually managed to get Caro's acid outside of aqueous solution to explode it (in a reaction not involving water)... so I can't find anyone who is stating authoritatively what would happen if you managed to do so. I can find plenty of explosive peroxides in literature, but haven't found any that are a simple redox reaction... Anyways, I'm reasonably satisfied that it should in some sense be possible, even if not practical.

by gpm 5y ago

gpm 5y ago

Re your edit > but I don’t think using clear and precise language is to blame It's not the use of clear and precise language which is to blame, it's the attempt to redefine existing imprecise language in an incompatible way to make it precise that is to blame. I'm all for adding a discussion of logic to math, and fallacies/biases to some sort of civics/philosophy style course. I don't think that's going to solve the problem that trying to redefine words out under people doesn't go very well though. It's not a logic problem, because logic relies on the definitions being agreed upon, and what you have here is one group trying to change the definitions in a way that makes everyone else wrong.

crazydoggers 5y ago
I agree with you here. But from my perspective I think that’s exactly what the article is doing. They’re talking about hydrogen burning in imprecise language and then they mix in oxidizers, a word with only a scientific definition (oxygen being officially named and discovered by Lavoisier in the 1700s) And then when scientists do invent new words so they don’t “redefine words out under people” they’re called snobs. Its why burning usually is talked about specifically as combustion if there’s any chance of confusion. For scientists it’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation. I just think theres room to be precise and I do think it has value. Trying to understand one another can be hard… miscommunication sometimes result in horrible results. And science education and communication to the lay person has been an unsolved problem since antiquity when then Library of Alexandria got burned down by an angry mob. I still think we can all benefit from talking things over, trying to be open minded and having civil discussions like we’re doing right here. Communicating clearly never seems like a bad thing to me.

crazydoggers 5y ago

> 2 Sn2+ → Sn4+ + Sn This isn’t a redox reaction though. Those are tin ions in equilibrium with each other.. so no combustion. > I'll ask the chemists in the house if they know of any such reactions tomorrow since Google isn't being much use I’d be interested what you find out, my chemistry knowledge has aged… theres always stuff I don’t know! Edit: Yep you’re correct it is considered a redox, but not combustion.

gpm 5y ago
> This isn’t a redox reaction though. Those are tin ions in equilibrium with each other.. so no combustion. I agree I wouldn't call this example combustion (which is typically required to be highly exothermic and therefore not easily reversible), but I believe it is a redox reaction. It's the transfer of electrons from one ion to another, which meets the definition I was taught. Wikipedia seems to agree, both with my definition of redox reaction [1], and that this is one [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox [2] (See Introduction and History): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disproportionation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disproportionation
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gpm 5y ago
> I’d be interested what you find out So they (two chemistry PhD students) both agree that it should be possible, but don't have any great examples. They point at disproponation as the right class of reactions (where I got Sn2+ from). They agree that the different ends of a hydrocarbon can react in a redox reaction, but at least for common chemicals it's usually a slow reaction. For more combustion like examples what I got was "maybe look at peroxides" and "maybe caro's acid" (H2SO5). I can't find anyone who actually managed to get Caro's acid outside of aqueous solution to explode it (in a reaction not involving water)... so I can't find anyone who is stating authoritatively what would happen if you managed to do so. I can find plenty of explosive peroxides in literature, but haven't found any that are a simple redox reaction... Anyways, I'm reasonably satisfied that it should in some sense be possible, even if not practical.