[karajorma]

No it was taken from exactly what you were saying.

If you downplay the weaknesses of an argument you are omitting all the evidence in support of it. Especially when it comes to a logical argument rather than one based on emotion. If you gave equal weight to evidence that supported an opposing point of view you wouldn't be downplaying it now would you?

I'll further point out that I mentioned the fact in my post that you weren't an outright liar.

Originally posted by karajorma
I never said you were a complete liar.

You really need to actually read my posts before replying to them. Yet again you've repeated an assertion that I had demonstrated to be false in my previous posting. For all you're complaining at Aldo for doing it is in fact you who did it.

I'll reiterate because you either didn't grasp it the first time or completely ignored it.
  Once you have tarnished your crediblilty by admitting you are a liar it matters not the degree to which you said you lie. You've already stated that you play down the weaknesses in your own argument so how could I possibly know that you aren't playing down the amount you lie?

And now you persist in this fantasy that I

1) Said all lawyers are liars
2) Said that you are a complete liar
3) Did all that deliberately to misrepresent you and win the argument.

despite the fact that I have explained on numerous occasions that none of those are true.

You're claiming that you don't omit things that are true if they will damage your argument yet instead of apologising for saying that I called all laywers liars you've completely glossed over the fact and gone on to a new argument about how I misrepresented you about something else.
 Why have you done that? It was important enough for you to rant about it before. Why have you completely ignored it after I've restated my case a second time and proved it wrong?

To me it appears that you are perfectly happy to commit a lie of ommission in order to win an argument. Maybe it's just that you lack the time to answer but you do seem to have lots of time to continue the argument on other parts of the topic. I would suggest that you address that issue before you continue claiming to me that I've misrepresented you.

[Osiri]

Kara

I give up. You refuse to see the contradiction of your first paragraph.

There is a difference between omitting all known negative evidence and downplaying but still presenting all known evidence.

The former is outright fraudulent misrepresentation to a court.  This would get me disbarred and IS outright lying.

The latter is mere debate.  The other side will emphasize the other evidence and will downplay mine.

The latter is exactly what you are doing.  As such you and aldo are misrepresenting by not giving full weight to weakness as well.

I also will do this in any argument.  I will not change facts or leave them out as this would be fraud.

You on the other hand are reading what you wish from my statements.

TO RESTATE MY WHOLE POINT:

If in a argument, you do not fully give 100% validity and attention to all negative evidence, you are still misrepresenting the weight of the argument.  You do this because the other sides job is to give emphasis to your negatives.

You repeatedly do this an then claim you would never.

I am not saying you are an outright liar.  I am not saying you are morally culpable for debating.  

The simple point is you do not unfailingly represent a negative for as much as it is.

[karajorma]

Let me get this straight. Taking the example of the court case Flipside posted. Are you telling me that as a defence lawyer if the defendant had said to all the his friends that he was going to kill that guy shortly before the incident you'd put the friends on the stand and make them say that even if the prosecution didn't know it?

Cause that is quite clearly a lie of omission even though I'm sure that most lawyers would do it.


And yet again you've ignored the whole all lawyers are liars argument a second time even though I told you that you should address that first or I would consider it a lie of omission. You've basically proved my whole point a second time even if the analogy above doesn't already do that.


The simple fact is that I'm not reading what I wish from your statements. I'm reading what you wrote. There is a difference between misunderstanding and misrepresenting that you have continually ignored despite the fact that myself and Aldo have stated it several times.

That leaves two possibilities.

1) You are incapable of grasping the difference
2) You don't wish to acknowledge the possibility that I'm not deliberately misrepresenting you but am instead misunderstanding you.

1) Means that you are a moron.
2) Means that you are committing yet another lie of omission by refusing to acknowledge the fact that malice might not be involved here but instead choose to argue that it was deliberate in order to win.

Make your choice or feel free to point out another alternative.

[Scottish]

If you downplay the weaknesses of an argument you are omitting all the evidence in support of [the weakness].

If you're downplaying the weakness of an argument, you're presenting the weaknesses but trivialising them as being less than critical defects.

You don't need to omit anything. You need simply state your opinion that the weaknesses are nothing more than minor instances where your argument is somewhat 'iffy'.

Like if I was to say I could throw better than you, but that I had a weak arm. I wouldn't be omitting the fact that I had a weak arm - I'd be stating that even with such a weakness I am able to throw better than you.

Especially when it comes to a logical argument rather than one based on emotion. If you gave equal weight to evidence that supported an opposing point of view you wouldn't be downplaying it now would you?

The 'weight' of any evidence should be completely seperate from the matter of it's associated implications. It's 'weight' should be based entirely on observable reliability and truth.

So it's entirely reasonable to disregard 'evidence' which supports an opposing viewpoint if it's source if questionable or is the source is biased. So, once again, no omission is required. You simply undermine it's credibility by finding flaws in the source and the source's reliability.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Scottish
If you're downplaying the weakness of an argument, you're presenting the weaknesses but trivialising them as being less than critical defects.

You don't need to omit anything. You need simply state your opinion that the weaknesses are nothing more than minor instances where your argument is somewhat 'iffy'.
 

Hmmm. I've noticed I put the word all in that sentence rather than some. By all I meant that you're ignoring the totality of the evidence rather than you're omitting every single piece.

Anyway, for the sake of discussion lets assume that the evidence for and against the opinion are of equal validity and roughly as strong for both arguments like in the example I stated of the scientists with opposing theories. Now do you see where I'm coming from?

If you're not giving equal weight to the other evidence you must be omitting some of it seeing as how you could talk about it for just as long.

The point was that in a situation like that I wouldn't partiucularly defend either viewpoint. I'd simply state the facts, say that in my opinion one of them was true because it had slightly more evidence or fit better with other theories. I would however state that there was a very good chance the other theory was correct.

You see the difference between that and still continuing to pump up the strengths of one side while saying that the other argument is wrong even when there is very little to choose between the two?

Originally posted by Scottish
So it's entirely reasonable to disregard 'evidence' which supports an opposing viewpoint if it's source if questionable or is the source is biased. So, once again, no omission is required. You simply undermine it's credibility by finding flaws in the source and the source's reliability.

Wanted to address this bit seperately. If the evidence is flawed it's not really evidence is it? If I say that the moon is made of green cheese and I know that cause the gremlin who lives in my closet told me that's evidence of nothing more than my insanity. It certainly can't be taken as evidence in favour of the composition of the moon.

By evidence I mean actual evidence. Not conjecture or supposition

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Osiri

Aldo, you have finally got my point but you are still arguing it.
You are presenting the facts as YOU see them as you want to read them.  You did not take notice of the 3 times I corrected myself.  You just saw the post that SUPPORTED your argument and disregarded reading the other ones.  

I clearly stated before your post that I didn't mean literally that bubble sort itself would be patentable.

Further, it is irrelevant exactly what your stance on patents was.  

My point is that your statements were a misrepresentation of my standards.  Regardless of anything you knew my standards were not that 90% of the algorithms in CS should CURRENTLY be patented.  As such you misrepresented me as a part of your argument which is exactly what you are trying to say you did not do.

If you really believed that a Computer Scientist believed that 90% of my own work should have been illegal can I have what your on.

Remember I too have a CS degree.

Anyway you guys have both misrepresented me.  This was done by taking what your THOUGHT I was saying and exaggerating it to an extreme.

Well, i can't comment on what Kara thinks your saying, or what Kamikaze thinks your saying, can I?

But I didn't exaggerate.  I drew a logical, final conclusion.  You don't like that?  Fine.  But don't call me a liar for stating what I think.

I've explained - multiple times - exactly what my opinion is and why I held it.  You might not like my reasoning, you may not agree with it, but that does not mean I cannot hold it.  It does not mean I lied or exaggerated.

And please don't try and insult me with sly, snidey remarks like 'you finally got my point'.  That's just not on, and it won't win points.

I notice you've been stating quite a few absolutes here yourself, as if they were anything but points of opinion.  Telling people they're wrong, for example, because they disagree with you.  Insinuating they're idiots and are incapable of getting your point, as if it were the only and unquestioned truth.  

Your entire arguement with kara has, I noticed, essentially turned into you saying 'aldo and kara are doing the wrong thing and I'm not'.  You've already dismissed my prior objections in the referred thread as not regarding weakness, when in fact you've decided to judge what is and what is not a key weakness or strength all for youself.

Not to mention you have wilfully misrepresented Karajorma yourself; you've opted to attack him by drawing vague insinuations that can only arise from someone seeking to conceive an insult against.  I'll concede that's easy to do; perhaps I've just done so myself.  But I don't believe I've ever resorted to the 'you insulted me so I'm right' argument, or claimed infallibility.

[Osiri]

Vague? I was straight forward.

Read my posts.  I said you were not liars.  You do misrepresent and disregard facts though  

I admitted that I do what I am talking about.  I do not lie.  I do make arguments.  I do sometimes represent opinions as fact.  This is a misrepresentation to some extent so I AM GUILTY.  FORGIVE ME.  I am not saying that anything I have done is morally culpable.  Just not absolute truth, I know its not absolute truth.

Kara did directly attack my credibility.  Regardless of how he followed up at that point in time he was attacking my credibility with misrepresentation.  

You are blowing what I am saying way out of proportion.

Both of you are disregarding one fact.  You told me that I was wrong not the other way around.  You provoked me.  It was not that you disagreed with me, you told me I was flat wrong.  I have challenged your arguments.  You have made representations knowing they were not fact.  This was the point of my original post.  You shouldn't have expected me to disregard the original point of the post.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Osiri
Vague? I was straight forward.

Read my posts.  I said you were not liars.  You do misrepresent and disregard facts though  

I admitted that I do what I am talking about.  I do not lie.  I do make arguments.  I do sometimes represent opinions as fact.  This is a misrepresentation to some extent so I AM GUILTY.  FORGIVE ME.  I am not saying that anything I have done is morally culpable.  Just not absolute truth, I know its not absolute truth.

Kara did directly attack my credibility.  Regardless of how he followed up at that point in time he was attacking my credibility with misrepresentation.  

You are blowing what I am saying way out of proportion.

Both of you are disregarding one fact.  You told me that I was wrong not the other way around.  You provoked me.  It was not that you disagreed with me, you told me I was flat wrong.  I have challenged your arguments.  You have made representations knowing they were not fact.  This was the point of my original post.  You shouldn't have expected me to disregard the original point of the post.

I said you lied about me disregarding facts or misrepresenting my reading of what you posted.  Well, actually I think I just said you were wrong about that, which doesn't imply lying....

Basically, I think your original point was wrong, and the insinuation it made towards me was wrong.  I stand by that, and I think I've explained exactly why I posted what you used as an example, and the context it was posted within.

I have never disregarded facts.  I have never misreprented them (this does not mean I have never misunderstood or misread them; I have always honstly posted my interpretations).

So you're wrong about that.  I'm sorry, but I know what I wrote, and I know why, and thus that you're wrong in what you think I did.  And I did take offence from that, and perhaps get a bit less polite than I should have been.  For that, I'm sorry.  But you're still wrong.  I'm not saying deliberately wrong, just that you've drawn the wrong conclusions, and I don't like what they would say about me if left unchallenged.

That simple.

[Osiri]

Who said anything about this only applying to HLP or internet posting.  Aldo what I am saying is that you presented facts and didn't look at some other posts and claimed that they were the pertinent posts.  I showed the claim of pertinence was incorrect because of the two corrections I had made as to the post you used to justify.  If you worked your way back 5 or so posts why did you not read and acknowledge the intermediate posts.  Did you just magically find it or did you go to your post that I quoted and read back.  Either way, the representation that the post you cited was the pertinent post was not correct and you had either disregard or failed to read the posts.

Yes it was your final conclusion.  Whether that conclusion was misrepresentative is the point.

I will accept that you just magically pulled the only time I said that out of the air.  You did not have to read back to find it.  I will accept that.  But you still represented that you had checked.  At least that was the representation that I understood.  I say this because if I had not read the intermediate posts I would have accepted blame and admitted that it was a bad citation on my part.  I found proof otherwise and you simply do not want to admit it.

That simple.

[aldo_14]

I disagree and stand by what I said previously in this thread and others.   I've already explained exactly my chain of reasoning.

You don't believe me, it's your problem, not mine.

[Scottish]

If I say that the moon is made of green cheese and I know that cause the gremlin who lives in my closet told me that's evidence of nothing more than my insanity. It certainly can't be taken as evidence in favour of the composition of the moon.

Why not? If the Gremlin is known to be a reliable source of information, then the moon may very well be made of cheese.

Think of it this way: Gremlin = Scientist; Closet = Radio telescope.

By evidence I mean actual evidence. Not conjecture or supposition.

If you're implying evidence is only valid if it's tangible, then most of humanity's scientific advancement can be dismissed as unsubstatiated guesswork with a 'house of cards' mentality.

To put it simply, in the case of vaguery, supposition and conjecture, it's a case of "No smoke without fire". The trouble comes in when people start mistaking a cigarette smouldering on the pavement for the rainforest burning to the ground.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Osiri
Read my posts.  I said you were not liars.  You do misrepresent and disregard facts though.

Originally posted by Osiri
Everyone knows that they do not know everything and thus they all are lying in a way. The question is who is lying because they are disregarding the truth and who is lying because they just don't have all the right sources.

and

Originally posted by Osiri
The lie is when you are trying to support your opinion.

I take exception to you saying I'm a liar. I happen to take your entire tone in this discussion as rather insulting. You've claimed to know what is going on in my head despite me repeatedly telling you that you're wrong. You don't know me. Who the F**k do you think you are to tell me what goes on in my head?

You continually claim I'm deliberately misrepresenting you when I'm doing nothing of the sort. Both myself and Aldo have repeatedly stated that there is a difference between deliberate misrepresentation and misunderstanding. I even took the time to spell it out in black and white for you and yet you still insist on arrogantly assuming that I am deliberately misrepresenting you when I have repeatedly stated that I'm not doing anything of the kind.

Furthermore you've not even acknowledged the possibility that someone could misunderstand.

Judging from his replies Aldo takes exception the the exact same things.

Originally posted by Osiri
Kara did directly attack my credibility.  Regardless of how he followed up at that point in time he was attacking my credibility with misrepresentation.

Bollocks. Are we back to that claim that I insulted all lawyers again? That insult existed in your mind alone. The only one misrepresenting the truth here is you. You've continued to do that again and again despite evidence to the contrary.

And even if that had been the comment you took it to be (Which it most definately was not) most people understand that the particular smilie that followed the comment is indicative of a joke instead of an insult. Instead of having some semblance of a sense of humour you launched into a tirade about how lawyers aren't liars and thieves despite the fact that no one had said that.

I didn't attack your credibility. You're doing a good enough job of it yourself by taking imagined slights and blowing them completely out of proportion.

If you're on about some other incidence rather than that ridiculous "he insulted lawyers" claim feel free to point it out. No doubt it will just be another attempt to set up a strawman with claims of how I'm misrepresenting you.  

Originally posted by Osiri
Both of you are disregarding one fact.  You told me that I was wrong not the other way around.  You provoked me.

You started it. Wah Wah Wah. You provoked me! Wah Wah Wah.

Is this the level your argument has been forced to descend to?

 If you aren't prepared to defend your philosophical musings then don't bother making them.

N.B. The funniest thing is that not only is a stupid and childish argument which is completely irrelevent to the discussion but it's also incorrect.
 My first reply to you was to voice an opinion which you said was flat out incorrect. If you're going to play the ridiculous "he started it" game you should have at least taken a look at who actually did start it.

Originally posted by Osiri
It was not that you disagreed with me, you told me I was flat wrong.  I have challenged your arguments.  You have made representations knowing they were not fact.  This was the point of my original post.  You shouldn't have expected me to disregard the original point of the post.

I can flat out tell you that you're wrong and it not be an opinion if you're claiming to know how my thought processes work. I'm a world expert on how Karajorma's mind works. There is no one more qualified in the world. Had you said your comments were in general I would have disagreed with your opinion but you said you were talking about everyone. I'm part of everyone and I know that you are wrong. Flat out wrong.
 Maybe I'm the only exception but in my case I know you are wrong so I can flat out tell you that you're wrong to say that everyone thinks the way you imagine that they do.

If you did actually know me rather than arrogantly assuming you do based on the small number of posts of mine you've read then you'd know that people quoting opinion, conjecture or assumptions as fact is actually one of my pet peeves. I always try to qualify statements when I don't know if they are fact with IIRC or AFAIK.
If you actually knew me you'd know that when I don't know something I try to find proof and quote a source.

In fact the only person who does that as much as me is Aldo which probably has a lot to do with why we were both so insulted by your continued assertions that we both misrepresent the truth in order to win arguments.



The fact is that as I said before doing that is part of your job as a lawyer but neither I nor Aldo are lawyers and in our professions misrepresenting the truth is actually the exact opposite of the way we should work.
 You're making the same mistake I warned you about right at the start. Just because you do it doesn't mean that we do.

As for your second post to Aldo you've got some damned cheek to go on about ignoring information in postings when you still continue to ignore my requests for clarification and explainations of how I stand on the matter.

Originally posted by Scottish
Why not? If the Gremlin is known to be a reliable source of information, then the moon may very well be made of cheese.

Think of it this way: Gremlin = Scientist; Closet = Radio telescope.:

If you believe that gremlins are a good source of anything other than a couple halfway decent movies starring Phoebe Cates you need your head examined.

Seriously I have no desire to argue the semantics of what gremlins are knowledgable about seeing as how they are entirely fictitious.

Originally posted by Scottish
If you're implying evidence is only valid if it's tangible, then most of humanity's scientific advancement can be dismissed as unsubstatiated guesswork with a 'house of cards' mentality.

Bollocks. Scientific theory is not conjecture or supposition. It is in fact both testible and provable in the majority of cases.

You've said yourself that it's entirely reasonable to disregard 'evidence' if it's source if questionable or is the source is biased.

You said that evidence = every single comment, experiment, eyewitness whatever regardless of how fanciful it is.

I've stated that for the purpose of this discussion I was using the term to describe what's left after everything has been discarded that you have already claimed is perfectly reasonable to discard.

That's not an opposing viewpoint. That's simply using the word in a different (and I believe more correct) fashion to the way you seem to want to use it so I have no idea why you've embarked on this discussion of semantics with me.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Scottish


Why not? If the Gremlin is known to be a reliable source of information, then the moon may very well be made of cheese.

Think of it this way: Gremlin = Scientist; Closet = Radio telescope.

If you're implying evidence is only valid if it's tangible, then most of humanity's scientific advancement can be dismissed as unsubstatiated guesswork with a 'house of cards' mentality.

To put it simply, in the case of vaguery, supposition and conjecture, it's a case of "No smoke without fire". The trouble comes in when people start mistaking a cigarette smouldering on the pavement for the rainforest burning to the ground.

Definitions of  tangible;
    * perceptible by the senses especially the sense of touch; "skin with a tangible roughness"
    * real: capable of being treated as fact; "tangible evidence"; "his brief time as Prime Minister brought few real benefits to the poor"
    * (of especially business assets) having physical substance and intrinsic monetary value ; "tangible property like real estate"; "tangible assets such as machinery"
    * palpable: capable of being perceived by the senses or the mind; especially capable of being handled or touched or felt; "a barely palpable dust"; "felt sudden anger in a palpable wave"; "the air was warm and close--palpable as cotton"

The only inverse of that would surely have to be intangible.

[q]# (of especially business assets) not having physical substance or intrinsic productive value; "intangible assets such as good will"
# incapable of being perceived by the senses especially the sense of touch; "the intangible constituent of energy"- James Jeans
# hard to pin down or identify; "an intangible feeling of impending disaster"
# assets that are saleable though not material or physical
# lacking substance or reality; incapable of being touched or seen; "that intangible thing--the soul" [/q]

Science is based on the basis of observations, made from evidence, leading to hypotheses proven or disproven by experimental evidence.

By definition, evidence used within a scientific rationale cannot be intangible, because it cannot be measured and  documented as evidencial fact.

That's the problem, also with your 'gremlin' comparison.  Because we know a gremlin is not a reliable source of facts because it does not exist.  There is no gremlin.  If it told kara the moon was made of green cheese, it would because it was a hallucination or schizophrenic episode.  And if there was a gremlin, it would have no more ability or truth than me saying that Einsteins theory of relativity was completely incorrect and we should in fact be using a fusili-based theory of the great Spaghetti Monster.

The reliability of a source, like a scientific source, can only be judged by evidence.  Tangible evidence, because intangible is not measurable or recordable.  In turn, scientific progress can only be made by tangible evidence.  Yes, we can make sudden guesses, jumps of logic - but we cannot progress and build upon that without something to test, a way to prove or disprove.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Hm... what to do, what to do...

[Scottish]

But my point was that all the 'evidence' of science being right is circular.

The only reason a scientist is a more valid source than a gremlin is because you've decided he is - because you've decided his conclusions best support your argument and that his foundations more closely conform to your own universal beliefs.

Just because a scientist mixes two chemicals and accurately predicts the colour of the poisonous gas that comes off, doesn't mean he's accurately predicted the chemical reactions involved, or that he's even remotely close to being right.

At each and every turn, science has been superceded by newer, better science. And yet with each and every generation, the world clings to the idea that it's own conclusions in regards to the physics of the universe are right and infallible and will last forever.

Same with religion too. The Greeks put their survival down to their Gods being more powerful than the Gods of their enemies, then they were wiped from the face of the Earth and Christianity started using the exact same arguments to justify their divine purpose.


And finally, going back to the Gremlin: Science only says the Gremlin doesn't exist because it doesn't conform to scientific analysis. But what if the Gremlin says science doesn't exist?

[Scottish]

And, incidentally, your criteria for determining the reliability of a source is biased towards Science, in that they are based on observable truths, which is a foundation of scientific research.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Scottish
But my point was that all the 'evidence' of science being right is circular. [SNIP]

Your claim that evidence can be biased is similarly circular.

You've already stated that you can discard evidence that is wrong. On what criterion would you base that on then?

Originally posted by Scottish
At each and every turn, science has been superceded by newer, better science. And yet with each and every generation, the world clings to the idea that it's own conclusions in regards to the physics of the universe are right and infallible and will last forever.

You couldn't be more wrong about science. Any scientist who claims his conclusions are infallible has left the scientific method far behind.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Scottish
But my point was that all the 'evidence' of science being right is circular.

The only reason a scientist is a more valid source than a gremlin is because you've decided he is - because you've decided his conclusions best support your argument and that his foundations more closely conform to your own universal beliefs.
Wrong.  Because the scientist has measurable - tangible - evidence and proof rather than hearsay.

Just because a scientist mixes two chemicals and accurately predicts the colour of the poisonous gas that comes off, doesn't mean he's accurately predicted the chemical reactions involved, or that he's even remotely close to being right.
By that definition, 2+2=4 is a coincidence and may just a be quirk.  If I press the brake and my car stops, it may not be due to the brake action.  And soforth.

At each and every turn, science has been superceded by newer, better science. And yet with each and every generation, the world clings to the idea that it's own conclusions in regards to the physics of the universe are right and infallible and will last forever.
That's complete rubbish.  Science has always been regarded as disproveable - if there is evidence to do so.

Same with religion too. The Greeks put their survival down to their Gods being more powerful than the Gods of their enemies, then they were wiped from the face of the Earth and Christianity started using the exact same arguments to justify their divine purpose.
Um.  you do know the difference between science and religion, don't you?  i.e. the concept of testability?  Faith does not set conditions for proof or disproof, nor ways to test these using observable, measurable, quantifiable evidence.

And finally, going back to the Gremlin: Science only says the Gremlin doesn't exist because it doesn't conform to scientific analysis. But what if the Gremlin says science doesn't exist?
You don't exist, and all the evidence to the contrary is the manipulations of the great Spaghetti monster.  Does that work for you?  Is that the best explanation?
 

I know that's a right tit to quote, but it's easier for me

If you can explain how you can have an unobservable truth, I'd be much obliged.

[Osiri]

Man don't yall have anything better to do on a Friday night. I come back from a lifesize maze with fiance and then hard dancing collapsing from complete exhaustion.  I wake up  this morning and you guys have left me with pages of materials.  Go out and get a girl for God sake.  

You are now misrepresenting Scottish's statments.  He is not saying anything quite so extreme as you are representing him to say.  Why don't yall learn to read and understand someone elses opinion before rejecting it.  Ask for further explanation before telling someone they are flat out wrong.

In this case, you are flat out wrong.

Quote Scottish
_________________________________________________
Just because a scientist mixes two chemicals and accurately predicts the colour of the poisonous gas that comes off, doesn't mean he's accurately predicted the chemical reactions involved, or that he's even remotely close to being right.
_________________________________________________

By saying that scientist mixing chemicals does not know what exactly is going on, he is absolutely right.  Chemist don't know everything happening.  If they did, Chemistry would simply be the mathmatical truth that Computer Science is.  Chemist know about the reaction but Scotty's point is that you cannot know what exactly is going on in the mix.  This is not the same as 2+2=4.  This is 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O.  What happens exactly in the meantime is not really known perfectly.

In many newer reactions, a scientist may think that one thing is happening only to have to publish a retraction and revision in a scientific journal.

That means that the reaction made it through extremely tough peer review and the entire scientific group behind that got it wrong.  At some point the scientific community figures out what was wrong and fixes the mistake.  The chemist still did something right but may not know what he did right.  

You might as well have asked the gremlin sitting next to the scientist what was going on.  He is magical and might have known what was actually happening.  Hell gremlins can make themselves invisible to us so they must have an extremely advanced grasp on physics and chemistry and would actually know.

_____________

Aldo and Kara seem to be internet bullies.  I have yet to see them agree with anyone other than themselves.

So far they seem to say you are wrong and here is the OPINION that I have that I base it on.

[aldo_14]

[q]Man don't yall have anything better to do on a Friday night. I come back from a lifesize maze with fiance and then hard dancing and you guys have left me with pages of materials. Go out and get a girl for God sake.

Aldo and Kara seem to be internet bullies. I have yet to see them agree with anyone other than themselves. [/q]

Please stop insulting me & karajorma for stating our opinions.