Re: Chemistry Lab final (Please! I need help!)

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Gene Nygaard - 08 Jul 2003 15:46 GMT

On 30 Jun 2003 13:47:52 -0400, "Eric Lucas" <ealucas@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

>"Gene Nygaard" <gnygaard@nccray.com> wrote in message
>news:bd9uid$jme@panther.Gsu.EDU...
>> Steve Turner <srturner1@spamnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:<bcvash$kbu@panther.Gsu.EDU>...
>> > Common sloppy misusage of the language (even among many
>> > scientists) does not change the underlying principle.
>
>> Sloppy misuage?
>....
>> There was no error, no sloppiness, no misuse, 1000 years ago.
>
>Correct--they didn't know any better.

What could they possibly have known that would have made any
difference whatsoever?

They invented this English word. It meant whatever they wanted it to
mean.

It meant the quantity measured with a balance.

That's still a pretty good measure of how much stuff you have, isn't
it? Handy in the chemistry lab too--even if your weighing device is
one of those modern electronic load cells, you calibrate it to measure
the same thing a balance would measure, in the location in which it is
used. That's the way the grocery stores do it for their "net weight,"
too. Note that the term "net weight" never is used in reference to a
measurement of force due to gravity.

We still quite properly call the quantity we measure with a balance
"weight."

So what didn't they "know any better"? What's missing? The
clairvoyance to be able to predict that someone way down the line many
generations later would borrow the word, and sometimes use it with a
different meaning?

>> There
>> is no error, no sloppiness, no misuse when we today continue to use
>> the very same word, with the very same meaning, for the very same
>> purposes.
>
>Wrong. We now have a better understanding of how the world works, and
>should know better. Unfortunately, as you demonstrate, some folks refuse to
>learn.

So tell me then, when exactly do you imagine that we lost all our
marbles, so that when we buy and sell goods by weight we started to
measure some quantity that varies with location?

There was no such change. We aren't that stupid (well, okay, maybe
some science teachers and authors of physics and chemistry textbooks
are that stupid, but fortunately they don't have any say-so in this).
So what does knowing more about how the world works have to do with
anything?

What do we know now that could possibly make any difference? After we
got so smart, did we change what we measure when we buy and sell goods
by weight? No.

When Isaac Newton was checking the quality of the coins produced at
the Royal Mint, I'll bet he measured their "weight" (in the same troy
units of weight that he also used in his scientific work). Even
today, those troy units of weight are never units of force.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

Signature

Paul J. Franklin(moderator - sci.chem.organic.synthesis)
http://organicworldwide.net/sci.chem.organic.synthesis
Georgia State University <chepjf@panther.gsu.edu>
Atlanta, GA

Reply to this Message

Steve Turner - 11 Jul 2003 20:35 GMT

bollweevil@centralpets.com (Dr F) wrote:

>As a linguist, I think I can help you guys out.
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>its INTENDED MEANING will CHANGE. There is no ABSOLUTE meaning, only
>intended meaning.

This sounds a little too Clintonesque for my liking. If everyone is
free to place his own meaning on a word, then language ceases to have
any function other than propagation of chaos.

With respect to context ... the disagreement about weight vs. mass
occurred in a forum dedicated to scientific discussion. It does not
seem unreasonable to assume a scientific context.

Anyway, I said before that I'm done with this argument. This time I
REALLY mean it! :) Nygaard obviously disagrees with Lucas and myself;
that is obviously his right. But it's MY right not to waste any more
time going in circles...

Steve Turner

Real address contains worldnet instead of spamnet

Signature

Paul J. Franklin(moderator - sci.chem.organic.synthesis)
http://organicworldwide.net/sci.chem.organic.synthesis
Georgia State University <chepjf@panther.gsu.edu>
Atlanta, GA

Reply to this Message

Gene Nygaard - 14 Jul 2003 17:45 GMT

On 11 Jul 2003 15:35:53 -0400, Steve Turner
<srturner1@spamnet.att.net> wrote:

>bollweevil@centralpets.com (Dr F) wrote:

>>As a linguist, I think I can help you guys out.

>>Gene was on to something when he wrote:

>>> They invented this English word. It meant whatever they wanted it to
>>> mean.

>>It gets even worse and more confusing than that. The inventors have
>>one meaning in mind. But if ANY word reaches everyday usage, even a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>its INTENDED MEANING will CHANGE. There is no ABSOLUTE meaning, only
>>intended meaning.

>This sounds a little too Clintonesque for my liking. If everyone is
>free to place his own meaning on a word, then language ceases to have
>any function other than propagation of chaos.

>With respect to context ... the disagreement about weight vs. mass
>occurred in a forum dedicated to scientific discussion. It does not
>seem unreasonable to assume a scientific context.

I'm glad to see that you have learned something, and are now singing a
different tune.

Now, if you ever figure out the meaning of "atomic weight" (which,
unlike the word "weight" alone, is something always used in a
scientific context), then maybe we can discuss the reasonableness of
that assumption. Just be aware also that talking about the sale of
cheese in a chemistry class doesn't change the rules governing such a
sale.
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_usubject=physic
ist%20cheesemonger&lr=&hl=en

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

Signature

Paul J. Franklin(moderator - sci.chem.organic.synthesis)
http://organicworldwide.net/sci.chem.organic.synthesis
Georgia State University <chepjf@panther.gsu.edu>
Atlanta, GA

Reply to this Message

Natural Science Forum / Chemistry / Organic Synthesis / July 2003

Re: Chemistry Lab final (Please! I need help!)