Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8
Calilasseia wrote:Frequently Occurring Fallacies No. 1: The Fallacy of 'One True Sequence'
A number of fallacies are in circulation amongs the enthusiasts for reality denial, and one that I wish to highlight here is known in scientific circles as "The Error of the One True Sequence".
1 litre of solution of 1 mmol l-1 will contain 6.023 × 10^20 reacting particles of interest, which means that 1 m3 of solution will contain 6.023 × 10^26 particles,
scoobie wrote:1 litre of solution of 1 mmol l-1 will contain 6.023 × 10^20 reacting particles of interest, which means that 1 m3 of solution will contain 6.023 × 10^26 particles,
How do you get from 10^20 to 10^26? Shouldn't it be 10^23?
rainbow wrote:scoobie wrote:1 litre of solution of 1 mmol l-1 will contain 6.023 × 10^20 reacting particles of interest, which means that 1 m3 of solution will contain 6.023 × 10^26 particles,
How do you get from 10^20 to 10^26? Shouldn't it be 10^23?
This is done by a combination of spurious probability calculations and dodgy assumptions.
sam_j wrote:rainbow wrote:scoobie wrote:1 litre of solution of 1 mmol l-1 will contain 6.023 × 10^20 reacting particles of interest, which means that 1 m3 of solution will contain 6.023 × 10^26 particles,
How do you get from 10^20 to 10^26? Shouldn't it be 10^23?
This is done by a combination of spurious probability calculations and dodgy assumptions.
I don't think there's anything too controversial or problematic about Avagadro's constant. It works for the rest of chemistry and you'd have thought by now someone would have noticed if it wasn't working given how much it is used particularly by industry. Calculating the number of water molecules in a cubic metre or the number of particles of solute in that same cubic metre is neither difficult nor controversial. Its just basic chemistry.
sam_j wrote:It's no good saying "the assumptions are whiffy" if you don't say in what way or what you think would me more appropriate assumptions and why and show your own calculations. Just saying they are whiffy doesn't help anything.
Cali wrote:Typically, what happens is that a probability calculation is constructed, usually on the basis of assumptions that are either left unstated altogether (conveniently preventing independent verification of their validity), or if they are stated, they usually fail to survive intense critical scrutiny.
Such fluids show the presence of low concentrations
(nmol range) of C8-C16 linear fatty acids
(N.G. Holm and J.Oë . Bjarnason, unpublished
data).
rainbow wrote:
OK, but I'll not bother doing any calculations as it's already been shown that Cali was wrong.
rainbow wrote:
Now it doesn't state what would be 'particles of interest , or what reactions they would undergo.
Unstated assumption - FAIL#1
rainbow wrote:
Then it claims that it could be anywhere in 100m of ocean. Doesn't explain why this is 100m, rather than 1m - or for that matter 1000m.
Fail to survive scrutiny - FAIL#2
rainbow wrote:
Then the concentration: 1 mmol/l - where does this number come from? Could it be nmol/l as suggested in some papers1?
Fail to survive scrutiny - FAIL#3
Stephen Colbert wrote:Now, like all great theologies, Bill [O'Reilly]'s can be boiled down to one sentence - 'There must be a god, because I don't know how things work.'
Rumraket wrote:It seems rainbow wants to erect the same discussion that took place on RD.net.
While Calilasseia's example is propably not an accurate representation of the whereabouts, amount and type of molecules vital to the formation of life, the underlying point is still valid in that it highlights actually fallacious thinking in common creationist canards erected against abiogenesis and evolution.
rainbow wrote:Rumraket wrote:It seems rainbow wants to erect the same discussion that took place on RD.net.
While Calilasseia's example is propably not an accurate representation of the whereabouts, amount and type of molecules vital to the formation of life, the underlying point is still valid in that it highlights actually fallacious thinking in common creationist canards erected against abiogenesis and evolution.
The article attacks the Creationist's argument by pointing out that it is based on unsupported assumptions.
Nothing wrong with that.
...but then it proceeds to make its own calculations based on unsupported assumptions.
Do you not see the Screaming Irony in that?
rainbow wrote:
The article attacks the Creationist's argument by pointing out that it is based on unsupported assumptions.
Nothing wrong with that.
...but then it proceeds to make its own calculations based on unsupported assumptions.
Do you not see the Screaming Irony in that?
... the Serial Trials Fallacy consists of assuming that only one participant in an interacting system is performing the necessary task at any one time. While this may be true for a lone experimenter engaged in a coin tossing exercise, this is assuredly NOT true of any system involving chemical reactions, which involves untold billions of atoms or molecules at any given moment.
UnderConstruction wrote:rainbow wrote:Rumraket wrote:It seems rainbow wants to erect the same discussion that took place on RD.net.
While Calilasseia's example is propably not an accurate representation of the whereabouts, amount and type of molecules vital to the formation of life, the underlying point is still valid in that it highlights actually fallacious thinking in common creationist canards erected against abiogenesis and evolution.
The article attacks the Creationist's argument by pointing out that it is based on unsupported assumptions.
Nothing wrong with that.
...but then it proceeds to make its own calculations based on unsupported assumptions.
It reads to me more like a hypothetical situation, designed to illustrate the kind of numbers potentially involved. It certainly does not read like and account of a specific abiogenesis event. As such, a few assumptions and oversimplifications are reasonable as long as they do not detract from the point being made. The numbers actually involved in just about any chemical reaction, even a relatively modest one, make the typical creationist serial trials canard look very silly indeed.
I am sure if Cali were to make assertions about how the actual event of abiogenesis might have occurred, we could expect to see a little more rigour and a lot more supporting evidence.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest