Swingman wrote:


And "methinks" you paint with too broad a brush, and perhaps miss some
important distinctions in scientific methods and terminology. While
there is always someone around who will *hypothesize* that the world
is flat, there is ample *empirical evidence*, and very little
"scientific discourse" and "discord", that this is NOT the case.

As I alluded to previously, many of the various *theories* and *laws*
on states of matter with regard to liquids, gases and solids (and more
specifically "condensation", "sublimation", etc - as discussed in this
thread), have the benefit of centuries of *empirical evidence*, and
upon whose shoulders entire branches of science are founded,
specifically do not fit into your above supposition of being in the
realm of "much discord" in "scientific discourse".

You and I are in more agreement than you may think, as it relates to
theories and laws. I was only trying to point out that even within the
esteemed scientific community, there is indeed a great deal of zeal and
unproven belief which results in a huge amount of discord and that cannot be
denied - just look at competing therories on various topics. Not all are
completely objective.

As it relates to this thread - that got off target. I never intended to
suggest or imply a question about condensation or sublimation, etc. Hell -
I never once took exception to any of those. Again - my response was in
reply to Han's statement - not to yours.

Beauty and meaning are both in the eye of the beholder, so let me just say
that you misunderstood what I was trying to say in my reply to Han. I was
not talking about condensation when I replied to Han.

--

-Mike-