Reductionism: Physics-Chemistry-Biology

[Slimething]

Nice ad hominem, schneib. From the looks of it you spent a lot of time and effort on it. Better than kicking the dog, I guess. I'm going to address your rant but I'm going to leave out nearly all the ad hominem stuff to preserve bandwidth.

Let's start by looking at one of your recent posts in its entirety so you will be less likely to say I'm lying about what you wrote:

Just so we're all on the same page here, I own a book called Electronic Structure and the Properties of Solids, "The Physics of the Chemical Bond." ISBN 0-486-66021-4, by Walter A. Harrison.

I think stating that we cannot derive the physical properties of substances from the physics of their atomic structures is basically disproven by the mere existence of this book. I'll point out that it is a textbook in the physical chemistry curriculum, which also tends to shoot down the assertion that physical chemistry isn't based on physics.

In case there are questions about what characteristics this is capable of predicting, it turns out that this book shows how spectra, hardness, melting point, elasticity, piezoelectricity, surface roughness, and specific heat can be derived from the electronic structure of the atoms that make up a solid. The author hints that we are near to being able to describe many other characteristics of materials, and near to being able to describe the characteristics of liquids as well. The second edition is copyright 1989- eighteen years ago. I suspect that a great deal has been found out since then.

So tell me again that chemistry isn't based on physics.

Now let's get to it:

Hmm. Let's check this out.

Electronic? Nope. No bonds there.
How about Structure? Nope. Not a bond in sight.
Hmmm, "and the?" Nope. Still no bonds.
OK, how about "Properties?" Nope. Bonds seem remarkably thin on the ground here.
What about "of?" Nope. STILL no bonds to be found.
Here comes the last one: "Solids." Nope. And that's all she wrote.

Overall, I'd say you had a brain fart. I see nothing in the title that has anything to do with bonds.

Did I catch you at something, schneib? Your original post above includes the subtitle to the book ("The Physics of the Chemical Bond") which you have intentionally forgotten to consider. You have it in quotation marks after the main title. You're not going to accuse me of inserting that in there while you weren't looking, are you? It's easy enough for a reader to go up the thread to your post to verify that this is the case.

Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about Physical chemistry^WP: "Physical chemistry is the application of physics to macroscopic, microscopic, atomic and particulate phenomena in chemical systems[1]within the field of chemistry traditionally using the principles, practices and concepts of thermodynamics, quantum chemistry, statistical mechanics and kinetics."

Oops. I think I see "application of physics" in there. Well, maybe Wikipedia is wrong. Let's try another one. How about the Biochemistry Division of Northwestern University's definition of physical chemistry? "'The physics of chemistry' A branch of chemistry which is interested in things such as, how much pressure would have to be placed on a solid to convert it to a liquid."

Oooooh. That's gotta hurt. You want some ice to put on it?

Maybe we can dig you out of this hole. What's the American Heritage dictionary say? No help there: "Scientific analysis of the properties and behavior of chemical systems primarily by physical theory and technique, as, for example, the thermodynamic analysis of macroscopic chemical phenomena." Physical theory. Yep, that'd be physics. Not to mention thermodynamics.

Maybe McGraw Hill will be better? Not a chance. "The branch of chemistry that deals with the interpretation of chemical phenomena and properties in terms of the underlying physical processes, and with the development of techniques for their investigation. The term chemical physics is often employed to denote a branch of physical chemistry where the emphasis is on the interpretation and analysis of the physical properties of individual molecules and bulk systems, instead of their reactions. Theoretical chemistry is another major branch, where the emphasis is on the calculation of the properties of molecules and systems, and which used the techniques of quantum mechanics and statistical thermodynamics. It is convenient to regard physical chemistry as dealing with three aspects of matter: its equilibrium properties, structure, and ability to change."

I so relish it when the opposing side works so hard at discrediting itself! Let's look at your earlier claim:

I'll point out that it is a textbook in the physical chemistry curriculum, which also tends to shoot down the assertion that physical chemistry isn't based on physics.

See the difference yet? I warned you that technical writing was very precise! The application of physics to a phenomenon does not make the results physics. Subtle, but it's there. If we all accept your "victory", one would think that I had posted a statement that held that chemistry, in whole or in part, deviated from physics. If I did, find it. I posted yours.

No, all you've done is make a bunch of claims that have turned out not to be true. Every one of them so far that has been verifiable has plain, flat failed.

Please refresh my memory and cite what claims I've made and how they have fallen flat. Remember, how stupid I am, OK?

On the other hand, every one I've made so far has turned out to be solid.

No. You claimed that chemistry is based on physics. (Don't deny it. It's all in black on gray at the start of this post.) You have not addressed that. You have also not even attempted to set aside the challenges I put to pgwenthold, also earlier in this thread for all to see. All you've tried to do is derail the discussion with the definition of physical chemistry and call me names.

Basically, this appears to be nothing but a lie. I'm assuming you wash test tubes or something. Maybe you work in the cafeteria at DuPont.

In technical jargon, this is called a calumny. You have no evidence to contradict the statement that I am a chemist but you accuse me of lying about it. Suppose I wasn't. So what? Suppose I was a dishwasher at duPont dreaming of a lab job and I posted my challenges to your claims. Would that make a real difference? No. You've not set aside the challenges. So, having trouble with a dishwasher's questions is what you want everyone to come away with from this exchange?

Wait a minute... this looks like you've slipped and made an assumption about me because it's true about YOU. Oh, my. A college kid who thinks he's ready to play in the bigs.

My bad. I mistook your age from your writing style and the content of your argument. People generally get wiser as they age so I'm afraid I misjudged you. I apologize.

Son, I been out of school pretty obviously longer than you been ALIVE. I prolly have hairs growing on my butt that are older than you are. So when you rile me up, I tend to make a show out of it- 'cause, see, the kind of tactics you use, they're kiddie stuff, and I don't think anyone who uses them deserves any mercy at all. Whatever you were figuring to do with this persona, I'd forget it, because I'm telling you, there ain't a soul on this board gonna listen to a single thing you got to say after this, unless they're as screwed up as you are.

Oh, goodness, I am so burned! How will I live? How can I face the JREF Forum after this?

If you are indeed out of school longer than I've been alive, you are truly old but that doesn't matter. This is a forum for the discussion of ideas, not putting each other down. Answer my questions that I may be the wiser, O schneib.

"Scant data we have on molecular bonds?" What the hell you been readin, son? This was published in 1992. It's the first google hit for "molecular bond strength table." It refers to another method of calculating the same thing. So there's at least two ways to do it. The second hit yields a page from the Chemistry Department web site of Michigan State University that has a table in it; search the page for "bond energy." In the blurb above the table, they say: "Tables of bond energies may be found in most text books and handbooks."

So much for the "scant" data on the super-mysterious sekrit molecular bonds.

Yes, scant in the sense that we don't really know as much as we need to know about the electronic character surrounding either atoms or molecules. There's still a lot to learn, as most other posters on this thread recognize but you don't. Every year, millions are spent on bond research. The most common pursuit is the investigaton of organometallic complexes but, hey, what does a dishwasher know?

Why should I bother to show them to YOU?

Umm, because I challenged you and I don't believe they exist? Is that a good enough reason?

Y'know, you should really think things through before you post. That claim that one can calculate the surface roughness from chemical bond data is like saying you can tell a car's color from it's engine. That's when I started smelling a rat.

For your information, he provides templates you can program into a scientific calculator to give expected physical properties of solids, and the table I spoke of organizes the key constants you have to change for each different element.

Sounds like empiricism to me. Kinda like Hansch analysis, y'know. BTW, why does that work? Look it up in your physics book! I'm just a dishwasher.

By the way, you ARE aware that Walter Harrison was a Professor of Applied Physics at Stanford University from 1965 to 1989, and from then until 1993, when he retired, was the Department Chair, right? And that he's currently a Professor Emeritus on the Stanford Applied Physics Faculty, correct? And that he has published over fifty articles in the field, correct? You DID look up his CV, didn't you? Or do you even know what a CV is?

And you DID know that he wrote THE textbook on solid matter physics, right?

I see you're not above appealing to authority. Another discredited argumentation ploy used by lackwits.

And that would be because I didn't discuss technical points about chemistry? Well, no, I guess that's wrong. Hmmm, then I didn't provide links to citations that proved what I said? Errrmmm, well, no, that one doesn't work either.

Could you kindly direct my attention to where you've answered the questions I asked? At best, you've only answered the questions you asked.

Look, you haven't a clue what the TITLE means, sport. You're claiming it's about bonding. Don't you think you'd better maybe take a step back before you make yourself look any stupider?

Addressed at the begining of this post. Check up there. Methinks you're the one who's looking a bit red at the moment, schneib.

And that would be... because I provided LINKS TO PROVE EVERYTHING I SAID?

Please direct me to the link that proves that chemistry is based on physics. I would like to forward it to the chemistry department at my old school demanding my money back because they misled me about fictitious people like Gay-Loussac, Kekule, Dalton, and others. The sheer collossal nerve of those people. No wonder I only became a dishwasher!

So, are you going to address my questions or are you only good at calling people names and falsifying book titles?

 

[Slimething]

You get one shot. Use it wisely.

I'll pass. Buh-bye!

 

[Oldpossum]

Chirality, is an emergent property of Physical Chemistry, that CANNOT be derived from physics. This conclusivly proves that Physical Chemistry, cannot be reduced into terms of the undepinning physics.

 

[Schneibster]

Chirality, is an emergent property of Physical Chemistry, that CANNOT be derived from physics. This conclusivly proves that Physical Chemistry, cannot be reduced into terms of the undepinning physics.

I have no idea how you could even think this.

Chirality is determined by whether a molecule is identical with, or different from, its mirror image. If it is identical with its mirror image, then it is not chiral; if it is distinguishable from its mirror image, then it is chiral.

Now, this property of chirality is an essential property of physics. This property determines whether a particular molecule shows the symmetry of parity. Specifically, parity is symmetry of physical results, that is, unchanging laws of physics, under spatial inversion; and a parity violation is an observed change in the laws of physics that happens as a result of such an inversion. So chirality is a violation of parity; undeniably a physical concept, modeled by physics mathematics, and not described in chemistry.

 

[Slimething]

Chirality is determined by whether a molecule is identical with, or different from, its mirror image. If it is identical with its mirror image, then it is not chiral; if it is distinguishable from its mirror image, then it is chiral.

I knew he couldn't stay away for long! So far, he's right.

Now, this property of chirality is an essential property of physics.

Citation, please. But, pray continue. You're about to hang yourself.

This property determines whether a particular molecule shows the symmetry of parity. Specifically, parity is symmetry of physical results, that is, unchanging laws of physics, under spatial inversion; and a parity violation is an observed change in the laws of physics that happens as a result of such an inversion. So chirality is a violation of parity;

Somebody got a jargon generator for Xmas! And I think I know who it is. This is unmitigated male bovine feces. Chirality is a term used in physics but only for subatomic particles. But, wait, it gets even better!

undeniably a physical concept, modeled by physics mathematics, and not described in chemistry.

Not described in chemistry? Are you for real? You are an absolute fraud. Anyone who's taken organic chemistry knows about chirality because it's the foundation of stereochemistry. And stereochemistry is one of the foundations of biochemistry. Every single effin' sugar in the universe is chiral, dumbass. Read about Pasteur, not a physicist, and tartaric acid at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry).

I think your last few posts have definitively established you as a sham, shneib. Not only do you not know much about science, you're a damned liar to boot.

 

[Schneibster]

I kind of like, "spamthing." That work for you?

 

[bobdroege7]

As a graduate of a small mid-western college of liberal arts with 4 Nobel prize in Chemistry winning scientists among the alumni and staff, I have to say.


Give up guys, he is right!

All his physics is math!

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~suslick/chymist.html

But some chemistry bypasses the physics and goes straight to MATH.

 

[Slimething]

I kind of like, "spamthing." That work for you?

You've outed yourself as a fraud, charlatan and liar. Give it up. You can at least try to exit gracefully. All you're competent to do is vilify anyone who questions you beyond your comfort zone, which is remarkably small.

Go away. Far away. As we both agree, this is a skeptical forum and most people here like to uncover frauds...like yourself.

I would like to say it's been nice...but you aren't.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

[Cuddles]

You've outed yourself as a fraud, charlatan and liar. Give it up. You can at least try to exit gracefully. All you're competent to do is vilify anyone who questions you beyond your comfort zone, which is remarkably small.

Go away. Far away. As we both agree, this is a skeptical forum and most people here like to uncover frauds...like yourself.

I would like to say it's been nice...but you aren't.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

I hate to say it, but Schneibster is one of the most respected people on this forum when it comes to science, especially physics, and there is no doubt that he is absolutely right in this case. The only person who has made a fool of themselves here is you.

 

[Slimething]

Give up guys, he is right!

All his physics is math!

Nah, bob, he's not right. At least, not if "he" is schneibster. His claim was that chemistry is entirely based on physics, not that physics is math.

In due course of his argument, he as lied at least twice: (1) he claims to possess and have read a book which he obviously does not own or comprehend and (2), when pressed on stereochemistry/chirality, he made up an answer out of thin air that was so outrageously wrong that it takes the breath away.

So, no, if he even was a slight bit right in his argument, the man himself is not "right".

 

[DeviousB]

That's not how it works. Physics, just like every other science, is predictive, but it's predictive only when you give it an initial state.

A mathematical model of physics is equally predictive, if you give it an initial state.

Again, you're trying to play semantic games, which are quite uninteresting. Not, it's NOT reducible to math. Math is just the language, it does not provide the content. Given an initial state, WHICH of the infinity of possible equations should you use to describe its evolution? Math cannot tell you. You MUST rely upon physical principles, which can ONLY be derived by actual experimentation. Which means you're doing physics.

No, I am using your ontological reductionism. By taking the mathematical properties of reality I can (hypothetically) arrive at a mathematical model of the universe where all your physical phenomena are emergent. The problem is you want ontological reductionism to stop at physics, when in fact there is no reason for it to. Having ontologically reduced biology to chemistry to physics, you are now arguing for methodological reductionism, so that the replacement of entities by simpler underlying entities will stop.

No part of biology does not involve physical entities, hence (ontologically) biology is physics. Similarly, no part of physics is not expressed as mathematics, hence (ontologically) physics is maths. If something is "nothing but" the sum of its components then this is unavoidable.

See "Synthetic and Analytical Thinking" by Franz Wuketits, and "The Metaphysics of Mechanisms and the Challenge of the New Reductionism" by Carl Gillett.

 

[Ziggurat]

A mathematical model of physics is equally predictive, if you give it an initial state.

A mathematical model of physics is physics, not math. Math alone cannot tell you which of the infinite possible models is a model of reality and which is merely a toy model for a non-existent reality. That is physics, NOT math.

No, I am using your ontological reductionism.

No, you're really not. You're merely getting tiresome in your ignorance.

By taking the mathematical properties of reality

And here it is: the flaw in your argument. The mathematical properties of reality ARE NOT SIMPLY MATH! Space-time is not Euclidean, for example. But math CANNOT TELL YOU THIS! If you start out talking about the "mathematical properties of reality", then you are NOT talking about math, you are talking about physics. You cannot brush the qualifier "of reality" under the rug, because that's the heart of it, not some minor detail.

I can (hypothetically) arrive at a mathematical model of the universe where all your physical phenomena are emergent.

The "mathematical properties of reality" IS the "mathematical model of the universe", and that IS physics.

The problem is you want ontological reductionism to stop at physics, when in fact there is no reason for it to.

Yes there is. You have failed to indicate how one can derive a single physics principle by manipulating math alone. It is not possible, not even in principle. For example, how can you derive that space-time has a hyperbolic, and not a Euclidean, metric? You cannot, not even in principle.

Having ontologically reduced biology to chemistry to physics, you are now arguing for methodological reductionism, so that the replacement of entities by simpler underlying entities will stop.

No, I'm really not. If a property is not derivable without experimentation, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE, then it cannot be reduced. Physics CANNOT be determined by math alone. As I already stated, and as you continually fail to address in any form whatsoever, math cannot distinguish between different self-consistent models. Only experimentation can do that. In contrast, while it is almost always easier (and frequently the only possible method for practical reasons) to do actual experiments in biology and chemistry, IN PRINCIPLE these properties can all be derived from physics. The ontology stops at physics because that's the bottom. Math is not the bottom. Math is not science. It is ONLY a language, it is a language COMMON to ALL branches of science, it cannot and does not provide the content.

Edit to add:

Similarly, no part of physics is not expressed as mathematics, hence (ontologically) physics is maths. If something is "nothing but" the sum of its components then this is unavoidable.

But physics is NOT simply math, as I keep telling you and you keep ignoring. Selecting WHICH model describes reality is not a mathematical process, it cannot be done with math, not even in principle. It can ONLY be done by experimentation. Hence (ontologically) physics is NOT maths.

 

[fls]

So chirality is a violation of parity; undeniably a physical concept, modeled by physics mathematics, and not described in chemistry.

Not described in chemistry? Are you for real? You are an absolute fraud. Anyone who's taken organic chemistry knows about chirality because it's the foundation of stereochemistry. And stereochemistry is one of the foundations of biochemistry. Every single effin' sugar in the universe is chiral, dumbass. Read about Pasteur, not a physicist, and tartaric acid at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry).

I think your last few posts have definitively established you as a sham, shneib. Not only do you not know much about science, you're a damned liar to boot.

I think you misunderstood. I think Schneibster was referring to parity, not chirality, in that list following the semi-colon.

He could be asked, I suppose.

Linda

 

[Ziggurat]

Not described in chemistry? Are you for real? You are an absolute fraud.

I think what we have here is a bit of poor phrasing. A better way to phrase it would have been that chirality is not unique to chemistry, that one encounters it on more fundamental levels than chemistry, and that its emergence in chemistry is therefore hardly surprising. Hell, chirality pops up in highschool-level physics (right-hand rule for currents and magnetic fields - that's chirality, though they don't usually use the word), for cryin' out loud. The implication that chemists don't work with chirality, and describe it chemically, is certainly wrong, but I don't think that was really his main point anyways.

As for Schneibster being a fraud, well, that claim just makes you look like a fool. He's proven his knowlegde plenty of times on this board. Even experts can be corrected from time to time, and asking for a clarification, retraction, or rephrasing on a particular point probably wouldn't bug anyone. But you've just pissed him off for really no reason at all, with no cause (since he DOES know quite a bit of physics), and embarassed yourself in the process. Not well played.

 

[DeviousB]

And here it is: the flaw in your argument. The mathematical properties of reality ARE NOT SIMPLY MATH! Space-time is not Euclidean, for example. But math CANNOT TELL YOU THIS! If you start out talking about the "mathematical properties of reality", then you are NOT talking about math, you are talking about physics. You cannot brush the qualifier "of reality" under the rug, because that's the heart of it, not some minor detail.

The "mathematical properties of reality" IS the "mathematical model of the universe", and that IS physics.

Only if physics is not maths. But physics is maths, hence what you call doing physics is merely determining the initial conditions of the maths. This is no more valid an objection than if I defined biology to be The Science of Living Things so any 'physics' you did involving living things would have to include biology and hence not be reducible.

If a property is not derivable without experimentation, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE, then it cannot be reduced. Physics CANNOT be determined by math alone. As I already stated, and as you continually fail to address in any form whatsoever, math cannot distinguish between different self-consistent models. Only experimentation can do that. In contrast, while it is almost always easier (and frequently the only possible method for practical reasons) to do actual experiments in biology and chemistry, IN PRINCIPLE these properties can all be derived from physics.

(a) Because you say experimentation is not a part of mathematics. This is just arbitrary.

(b) This is not reductionism, but expansionism. No biological principle can not be part of physics because you just include it in your physical model and call it physics.

The ontology stops at physics because that's the bottom. Math is not the bottom. Math is not science. It is ONLY a language, it is a language COMMON to ALL branches of science, it cannot and does not provide the content.

That mathematics isn't science is your opinion, and not one shared by many scientific philosophers (Popper for example).

But physics is NOT simply math, as I keep telling you and you keep ignoring.

I ignore it because it is wrong.

Selecting WHICH model describes reality is not a mathematical process, it cannot be done with math, not even in principle. It can ONLY be done by experimentation. Hence (ontologically) physics is NOT maths.

Because you exclude experimentation from mathematics. Your justification for doing this is your own say so, but several mathematical theorems have been proved by reducing the problem to a discrete set then testing the theorem for each member 'by hand'. They are not proving it mathematically in your sense, they are formulating the problem in such a way that its truth or falsity can be shown by a simple experiment.

http://www.expmath.org/

 

[Ziggurat]

Only if physics is not maths. But physics is maths,

I've never met a mathematician or a physicist who would agree with this assertion.

any 'physics' you did involving living things would have to include biology and hence not be reducible.

Not so. You can take a biological system, ignore any principles of biology per se and only look at physics properties, and study it. I know people who do exactly this, in fact.

(a) Because you say experimentation is not a part of mathematics. This is just arbitrary.

Only in the sense that the definition of every word is arbitrary.

That mathematics isn't science is your opinion, and not one shared by many scientific philosophers (Popper for example).

Got a quote by him providing a definition of what constitutes science and what constitutes math?

Because you exclude experimentation from mathematics.

Damned straight. That's why mathematicians don't have laboratories, just offices.

Your justification for doing this is your own say so, but several mathematical theorems have been proved by reducing the problem to a discrete set then testing the theorem for each member 'by hand'.

That's not an experiment. An experiment is where you test a proposition against physical reality, not against pure logic, which is what you're describing.

They are not proving it mathematically in your sense,

Wrong, wrong, wrong. They ARE proving it mathematically in my sense - that you thought otherwise only illustrates that you don't understand what I'm saying.

http://www.expmath.org/[/QUOTE]

They can call it whatever the hell they like, it ain't the same thing.

 

[Slimething]

I think you misunderstood. I think Schneibster was referring to parity, not chirality, in that list following the semi-colon.

No, I did not misunderstand. Here's an excerpt of his post. If you don't believe me, it's #104.

Chirality is determined by whether a molecule is identical with, or different from, its mirror image. If it is identical with its mirror image, then it is not chiral; if it is distinguishable from its mirror image, then it is chiral.

Now, this property of chirality is an essential property of physics. This property determines whether a particular molecule shows the symmetry of parity. Specifically, parity is symmetry of physical results, that is, unchanging laws of physics, under spatial inversion; and a parity violation is an observed change in the laws of physics that happens as a result of such an inversion. So chirality is a violation of parity; undeniably a physical concept, modeled by physics mathematics, and not described in chemistry.

Obviously, I've added the emphasis.

He could be asked, I suppose.

Linda, you go ahead. I'm fed up with the ***hole. He's fabricated information, lied about it and insulted me in every way that wouldn't draw the automatic censor. If you can find a shred of knowledge or decency in the man, let me know and I'll reevaluate my opinion of him.

 

[Slimething]

I hate to say it, but Schneibster is one of the most respected people on this forum when it comes to science, especially physics, and there is no doubt that he is absolutely right in this case. The only person who has made a fool of themselves here is you.

Thanks for the information, cuddles.

Do yourself a favor and read his post (#104) and check the facts yourself. Look up the use of the word "chirality" in physics and chemistry and you'll see that he's dead wrong on a number of counts in his response. That passes for authoritative scientific knowledge in your world?

I do admit that he can weave a very convincing statement with big words such that he could fool someone completely unknowledgeable in science but that's not the case with me. If you read this thread starting at #86, you'll find that the man has done nothing but offer up misrepresentations, lies and insults. If that is what you respect in a scientist then you've found your man. However, to pose a question to you, would you have appreciated Sagan as much if he had acted like schneib?

In the meantime, I have no quarrel with you at all. I realize that many idols have clay feet and I didn't set out to expose the man. Perhaps he was drunk or on pain meds while he corresponded in this thread but that is not my responsibility or concern. I too have a right to be treated with courtesy, don't forget that.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, I did not misunderstand. Here's an excerpt of his post. If you don't believe me, it's #104.

Chirality is determined by whether a molecule is identical with, or different from, its mirror image. If it is identical with its mirror image, then it is not chiral; if it is distinguishable from its mirror image, then it is chiral.

Now, this property of chirality is an essential property of physics. This property determines whether a particular molecule shows the symmetry of parity. Specifically, parity is symmetry of physical results, that is, unchanging laws of physics, under spatial inversion; and a parity violation is an observed change in the laws of physics that happens as a result of such an inversion. So chirality is a violation of parity; undeniably a physical concept, modeled by physics mathematics, and not described in chemistry.

What we have here is a case of ambiguity in the language. Let me suggest two different rephrasings of the last sentence:
1) So chirality is a violation of parity; chirality is undeniably a physical concept, modeled by physics mathematics, and not described in chemistry."
2) So chirality is a violation of parity; parity is undeniably a physical concept, modeled by physics mathematics, and not described in chemistry.

As written, the last sentence could in principle mean either 1) or 2). You thought he meant 1), and objected. But the sentence could also have been intended to mean 2). And on second reading, I'm actually inclined to think that's the way it was intended, because otherwise there wouldn't be much point in bringing up the notion of parity. So if you read it as 2), then the argument makes more sense.

Now, misreadings happen all the time. And Schneibster isn't always the most friendly poster. But he generally does know what he's talking about with regard to physics, and if he meant it as 2), then you've jumped on him because you misunderstood an ambiguous sentence.

 

[Slimething]

What we have here is a case of ambiguity in the language. Let me suggest two different rephrasings of the last sentence:
1) So chirality is a violation of parity; chirality is undeniably a physical concept, modeled by physics mathematics, and not described in chemistry."
2) So chirality is a violation of parity; parity is undeniably a physical concept, modeled by physics mathematics, and not described in chemistry.

As written, the last sentence could in principle mean either 1) or 2). You thought he meant 1), and objected. But the sentence could also have been intended to mean 2). And on second reading, I'm actually inclined to think that's the way it was intended, because otherwise there wouldn't be much point in bringing up the notion of parity. So if you read it as 2), then the argument makes more sense.

Now, misreadings happen all the time. And Schneibster isn't always the most friendly poster. But he generally does know what he's talking about with regard to physics, and if he meant it as 2), then you've jumped on him because you misunderstood an ambiguous sentence.

Ziggurat, that hypothesis would hold water were it not for the sentence where he first made it clear that he was writing about molecular chirality, that is the chemistry kind. Chirality, used in physics, is reserved for subatomic particles. So, you'd have to rewrite pretty much all of his post if you wanted to argue convincingly that I misunderstood either what he wrote or what he intended to write.

BTW, his attitude goes beyond "not the friendliest". Recklessly hostile is a more accurate description. I am not regreting the least bit either catching him at being deceitful or giving as good as I got but, if you or anyone else on this board is a personal friend, you might want to check on him. There is something not right with the man at the moment.