[FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[glen]

It's unclear to me why friam at redfish.com was CC'ed. But I'll assume it's an open invitation to argue ...

The Student's response seems, to me, to be clear evidence of a Bad Faith contrarian. Anyone who has any interaction with any chemicals at all, knows the "language of a lab tech". The student, here, is simply being a jerk trying to talk in some out of context language. Or, alternatively, if the student is that stupid, they don't belong anywhere near a lab.

So, have you answered the question? Yes. You are like the student, a Bad Faith contrarian. >8^D

On 9/19/22 11:59, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> As to the substance, I find the Lab Tech’s response oddly incoherent.  First he appears to ding her for her flat affect.  “Look, kid,  some consequences are more… um… consequential than others.  Don’t you feel the heat of that explosion?” On that point, I agree with him.  Emotional consequences are consequences.  We could do experiments on them.
> 
> But then he seems to be dinging her for not understanding that the dire consequences arise from molecular events rather than from bad lab technique, as if they become more consequention when they are understood in atomic terms.  As if their “dangerousness” is attached to their “atomicness”.  This argument felt to me like some sort of creepy essentialism, I and wanted no part of it.  I would have been even more proud of the student if she had responded, “Respectfully, sir, that makes no sense to me at all.  What is truly dangerous here, what I must be steadfastly warned against, is mixing these two substances under particular circumstances, or even composing a mixture that might, though inattention, find itself under those circumstances.   True, atomic principles might help me anticipate dangers with other solutions, but the danger is in the explosion, not in the atoms.
> 
> 
> Have I answered your question?

-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ