Cap'n Refsmmat

Hm. I just tried adding you as a friend, and it showed up in both our profiles. It can be inconsistent, though; some people have to approve your request before it appears, and others don't. (There's an option to let you require approval first.) It should be bidirectional, as far as I know.

Check your Facebook Connect settings here: http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=members&area=facebook There's a setting for your avatar. If that doesn't work, you can disconnect your account from Facebook using the button at the bottom of the page.

Today I've upgraded the mathematics support on the SFN Blogs. We now use MathJax to display nicely-typeset equations directly in the browser, rather than generating fuzzy images which didn't always match with your blog themes. The MathJax output should look much, much nicer, and fits in with the surrounding text much better. Your previous equations should already work perfectly with MathJax. In future posts, you can take advantage of new features, like using the LaTeX syntax for display equations: \[ x = \frac{-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a} \] to get display-size nicely-typeset equations. For mathematics within a paragraph, you can still use the $latex x^2$ syntax you're used to, or LaTeX-style \( x^2 \) syntax. Let me know if you encounter any problems. (Incidentally, these changes will soon be making their way to SFN!)

Indeed. Queen of Wands, if you want us to read an article on another site, please just provide the link. Future plagiarism will simply be deleted.

What you describe exists; it's called a diving bell. Similarly, there are underwater habitats like Aquarius which can be kept at high pressure. One has to change the air mixture breathed at depth; you don't want to breathe pure nitrogen and oxygen at high pressures, so they often use a blend of helium, nitrogen and oxygen in various proportions.

Yes, if you're pretending to make a deductive argument with an appeal to authority (He's an expert; therefore, he's right), you're doing it wrong. But you originally stated that appeals to authority are automatically fallacious, and that's not true. An appeal to authority can be used as part of a perfectly valid argument. Relating to the original point: showing credentials for our resident experts would indeed serve to increase the credibility of their posts, because inductively, it would increase our level of trust. Authority can't stand on its own, but mentioning it does not hurt.

Yes. The point being that argument from authority is not fallacious; an argument from unqualified authority is. Argument from authority is a valid inductive method. Yes, if you're pretending to make a deductive argument with an appeal to authority (He's an expert; therefore, he's right), you're doing it wrong. But you originally stated that appeals to authority are automatically fallacious, and that's not true. An appeal to authority can be used as part of a perfectly valid argument.

[math]x\neq x[/math]?

Many laymen do not have the necessary background to judge whether any one explanation is more clear or concise than another. Surely we've all had the experience of reading an argument in a field we know little about, thinking "oh, that makes sense," and then being told it actually contradicts the basic principles of its field. I do wish we'd provide more clear and concise explanations, though; some of our members seem more inclined to say "read a book."

Many programming languages represent exponentiation with the ^ symbol; hence x^2 means "x to the power of 2". In cases where we can't easily write out the nice mathematical notation, it's easy to just use ^.

To be even more explicit, I gave an example of what I meant, and how nobody can say "X is true because of my qualifications." If you're going to require arguments to avoid deductive fallacies, you will no longer have most any argument that exists on SFN. "Global mean temperatures have been on the increase, and models suggest this is due to factors which will continue to increase in strength; therefore, the temperature will continue to increase in the future" is deductively fallacious, because there is no deductive logical principle which can take us from "This is how it has been" to "This is how it will be." There is no principle of induction which guarantees that the same physical laws which exist today will exist tomorrow. We largely trade in inductive arguments, and "DrRocket knows lots of math; therefore, I can trust that his post about mathematics is probably right" is an entirely valid inductive argument. DrRocket's expertise is not a guarantee of correctness, but it is entirely valid to trust his posts more because of it. On the other hand, "DrRocket knows lots of math; therefore, I can trust that his post about frog reproductive strategies is probably right" is a fallacious inductive argument, although perhaps DrRocket has some strange hobbies he has not yet disclosed to us.

The point is that "appeal to qualified authority" is not listed as a fallacy, and is in fact listed as a valid inductive argument. If you have further suggestions, I'd suggest that being cryptic and terse is the least effective way of conveying them.

A Concise Introduction to Logic, by Hurley, lists arguments from authority as valid inductive arguments, and lists under informal fallacies the "Appeal to Unqualified Authority": Now, note that it's an inductive argument; that is, an argument from authority with valid premises does not necessarily have a valid conclusion, because the authority might be wrong. But as an inductive argument, it is valid. It is only fallacious when the use of an authority adds nothing to the argument, because the authority is unqualified.

A Watt is a Joule per second. There's a direct conversion between Joules and BTUs if you look it up.

My favorite example of this is "Dr. Sullivan": http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/45776-evolution-and-information-theory/ (Yes, I changed the username after the fact to reflect the fraud. In several other discussions he claimed to be a researcher in biology who thought evolution had been discredited.) I agree. And personal attacks are counterproductive; they don't convince your opponent to change his mind, but instead give him motivation to try harder to prove you wrong. When people become emotionally invested in being right -- because admitting error means admitting idiocy -- they seek any possible method to discredit your argument, logical or not. But it's difficult to try to teach everyone the error of their ways, instead of saying "you must be stupid to think that." Often the members who are the targets of personal attacks are the sort of people who already refuse to admit error, and who are incredibly frustrating to debate against. We can't expect our members to serve as endless wells of references, explanations, and patience for people who are not willing to learn. I'd prefer that members frustrated with endless idiocy simply report the thread, rather than resort to insults. We have rules against logical fallacies and a set of speculations forum rules; I'd rather close threads than deal with a barrage of insults.

This already exists: http://questvisual.com/

The issue should now be fixed, and posts are appearing again. Those interested in following the SFN Blogs should consider subscribing to our RSS feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/sfn-blogs

The reputation points you give there go to the SFN Blogs user, not the blog post author. There is an error that's preventing new items from being posted, yes. I'll try to correct that.

Which rule requires this?

When you're at the center of a spherical object, all the mass around you pulls outwards, but in opposing directions. The net force is essentially zero. Hence if you were to build a small chamber at the exact gravitational center of the Earth, you'd float inside it.

Which rules are these? Could you list them?

There are multiple potential causes for a given set of symptoms, some of which are harmful and others of which are nothing to worry about. Medical training is required to distinguish the two. Please do not give medical advice.

I believe you're right that milk is a colloid. Based on your textbook's definition of homogeneous, I'd agree with you, but the distinction is somewhat arbitrary.

I've moved this to Speculations. That's not a judgment of the quality of your idea, but merely a reflection that it is, in fact, a speculation, albeit a very interesting one. I'll have to put some thought into this when I have time.

You should check out our Speculations Forum Rules, then. We don't forbid speculation on new topics or discussion of unproven theories. What we require is that the speculation lead to testable predictions. If we were around before the acceptance of plate tectonics, we could certainly discuss it, as long as we kept in mind what observations would be needed to validate the theory and what observations would falsify it.