Explanations That Aren't. - Page 2

theprestige · 2nd March 2021, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Well it would seem others here seem to have an inkling of what I am about.

Nice conciliatory approach too imply I am ignorant by the way.

Try researching how trees manage to pump water from their roots to their leaves, and you will get lots of nonsense and impressive sounding terms, but no clear explanation. Well not an explanation that will satisfy someone with a rudimentary knowledge of physics anyway.

Why would someone with a mere rudimentary understanding of physics think they were entitled to a clear explanation of tree biology? Is that what's got your panties in a bunch? Tree experts aren't bothering to explain their mastery on yourself novice level?

Sideroxylon · 2nd March 2021, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast

It's only a tautology if only poppies possess a Somnolent Nature.

If there exists a class of objects which possess a Somnolent Nature, then it can be asserted (and makes sense, although it's not strictly speaking implied) that such a Nature is causal. Then explaining the effects of poppies as an example of a larger force at work is not a tautology,

Looks like a clear tautology in the context of, “Why does opium cause sleepiness?” Is there any new information here? That there exists some causal nature in opium is implied in the question, while sleep inducing and somnolent are synonyms.

The answer certainly seems unsatisfactory as an explanation. If not for being tautological, why does it fail?

Thor 2 · 3rd March 2021, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Why would someone with a mere rudimentary understanding of physics think they were entitled to a clear explanation of tree biology? Is that what's got your panties in a bunch? Tree experts aren't bothering to explain their mastery on yourself novice level?

Why theprestige you excel yourself with the insults yet again.*

The mechanisms used in tree biology must obey the laws of physics. The explanations I see from these experts don't appear to show a knowledge of physics. I see suggestions that trees suck up water. Suck up water over a hight of many many metres which would require a vacuum of many atmospheres. This is impossible don't you know? Perhaps not, maybe your knowledge of physics is not so good.

Incidentally I have a good friend who is an agricultural scientist. The question has him stumped.

* When you don't have an argument I guess that is all you can do.

EHocking · 3rd March 2021, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Why theprestige you excel yourself with the insults yet again.*

The mechanisms used in tree biology must obey the laws of physics. The explanations I see from these experts don't appear to show a knowledge of physics. I see suggestions that trees suck up water. Suck up water over a hight of many many metres which would require a vacuum of many atmospheres. This is impossible don't you know? Perhaps not, maybe your knowledge of physics is not so good.

Incidentally I have a good friend who is an agricultural scientist. The question has him stumped.

* When you don't have an argument I guess that is all you can do.

This should help you understand that a vacuum of many atmospheres is not required to move water up a tree.
The key is the very small diameter of the xylum.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-trees-such-a/

gnome · 3rd March 2021, 05:23 PM

"Because then everyone will want that."

Not always an invalid explanation, if it's obvious why everyone availing themselves is a bad idea. But if that's not clear, it makes a frustrating answer.

EHocking · 3rd March 2021, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by gnome

"Because then everyone will want that."

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Thor 2 · 3rd March 2021, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by EHocking

This should help you understand that a vacuum of many atmospheres is not required to move water up a tree.
The key is the very small diameter of the xylum.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-trees-such-a/

Thanks for the input EHocking but I have seen this article, or something similar, before. Look at this excerpt:

Quote:

This pulling of water, or tension, that occurs in the xylem of the leaf, will extend all the way down through the rest of the xylem column of the tree and into the xylem of the roots due to the cohesive forces holding together the water molecules along the sides of the xylem tubing. (Remember, the xylem is a continuous water column that extends from the leaf to the roots.) Finally, the negative water pressure that occurs in the roots will result in an increase of water uptake from the soil.

I call this a typical explanation that isn't. Or it is if you are happy that many atmospheres of vacuum can be created. Perhaps the answer does lie in here somewhere if the water is drawn up in stages but the above talks of a continuous water column.

EHocking · 3rd March 2021, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Thanks for the input EHocking but I have seen this article, or something similar, before. Look at this excerpt:

I call this a typical explanation that isn't. Or it is if you are happy that many atmospheres of vacuum can be created. Perhaps the answer does lie in here somewhere if the water is drawn up in stages but the above talks of a continuous water column.

Many atmospheres are not created nor are they necessary.
There are many, many resources at your fingertips to help you understand the explanation, e.g.,
Look up cohesion tension theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylem#...tension_theory

It can 'splain it to you, but it can't understand it for you.

Gord_in_Toronto · 3rd March 2021, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Thanks for the input EHocking but I have seen this article, or something similar, before. Look at this excerpt:

Quote:

This pulling of water, or tension, that occurs in the xylem of the leaf, will extend all the way down through the rest of the xylem column of the tree and into the xylem of the roots due to the cohesive forces holding together the water molecules along the sides of the xylem tubing. (Remember, the xylem is a continuous water column that extends from the leaf to the roots.) Finally, the negative water pressure that occurs in the roots will result in an increase of water uptake from the soil.

I call this a typical explanation that isn't. Or it is if you are happy that many atmospheres of vacuum can be created. Perhaps the answer does lie in here somewhere if the water is drawn up in stages but the above talks of a continuous water column.

From a cursory glace at what's highlighted, it looks like the water is maybe pumped up the tree from the bottom. Not sucked from the top. I would also hazard a guess that this is not the only physical principle involved. Surface tension as well, maybe? Osmosis?

Gord_in_Toronto · 3rd March 2021, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

From a cursory glace at what's highlighted, it looks like the water is maybe pumped up the tree from the bottom. Not sucked from the top. I would also hazard a guess that this is not the only physical principle involved. Surface tension as well, maybe? Osmosis?

Just a WAG. I'm not a botanist.

EHocking · 3rd March 2021, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

From a cursory glace at what's highlighted, it looks like the water is maybe pumped up the tree from the bottom. Not sucked from the top. I would also hazard a guess that this is not the only physical principle involved. Surface tension as well, maybe? Osmosis?

It is both pushed and pulled.

See my link above

Thor 2 · 3rd March 2021, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by EHocking

Many atmospheres are not created nor are they necessary.
There are many, many resources at your fingertips to help you understand the explanation, e.g.,
Look up cohesion tension theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylem#...tension_theory

It can 'splain it to you, but it can't understand it for you.

Thanks again. This is probably one of the most honest articles I have seen on the subject. See the following:

Quote:

Over the past century, there has been a great deal of research regarding the mechanism of xylem sap transport; today, most plant scientists continue to agree that the cohesion-tension theory best explains this process, but multiforce theories that hypothesize several alternative mechanisms have been suggested, including longitudinal cellular and xylem osmotic pressure gradients, axial potential gradients in the vessels, and gel- and gas-bubble-supported interfacial gradients.[26][27]

You see the above. They are still hypothesising about the subject, and yet you will find articles where some will say it is still this or that with absolute confidence. They throw in words like osmosis and capillary action etc but no detail about how it happens.

Any scientist will also ask the question: "Where and how does the energy come from to do the work?" I know they will just throw at you "It comes from the Sun", but no detail is given about the mechanism.

If the mechanism was so well understood then why can't we copy it. Lots of water needs pumping.

Thor 2 · 3rd March 2021, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

From a cursory glace at what's highlighted, it looks like the water is maybe pumped up the tree from the bottom. Not sucked from the top. I would also hazard a guess that this is not the only physical principle involved. Surface tension as well, maybe? Osmosis?

Surface tension or capillary action and osmosis are tiny forces.

EHocking · 3rd March 2021, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Thanks again. This is probably one of the most honest articles I have seen on the subject. See the following:

You see the above. They are still hypothesising about the subject, and yet you will find articles where some will say it is still this or that with absolute confidence. They throw in words like osmosis and capillary action etc but no detail about how it happens.

Any scientist will also ask the question: "Where and how does the energy come from to do the work?" I know they will just throw at you "It comes from the Sun", but no detail is given about the mechanism.

If the mechanism was so well understood then why can't we copy it. Lots of water needs pumping.

The sun -> evaporation at stomata-> cohesive tension.

Rather than do this piecemeal it would be more advantageous to you to read an article on the entire process.

You not understanding how osmosis or capillary action is relevant is not the authors issue IMO.

Thor 2 · 3rd March 2021, 11:29 PM

What I am trying to point out here is that many, when asked a technical, or other, question, will just throw in some impressive sounding words and walk away. Many, such as theprestige, will be satisfied. I am not.

Thor 2 · 3rd March 2021, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by EHocking

The sun -> evaporation at stomata-> cohesive tension.

Rather than do this piecemeal it would be more advantageous to you to read an article on the entire process.

You not understanding how osmosis or capillary action is relevant is not the authors issue IMO.

I am familiar with osmosis and capillary action, but they are tiny forces.

Sideroxylon · 3rd March 2021, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

What I am trying to point out here is that many, when asked a technical, or other, question, will just throw in some impressive sounding words and walk away. Many, such as theprestige, will be satisfied. I am not.

Sounds like a lot of cynicism going on.

Thor 2 · 4th March 2021, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Sounds like a lot of cynicism going on.

Oh yes! Lots of it.

Gord_in_Toronto · 4th March 2021, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I am familiar with osmosis and capillary action, but they are tiny forces.

Maybe, but that us not to say that their effects cannot be cumulative.

Thor 2 · 4th March 2021, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Maybe, but that us not to say that their effects cannot be cumulative.

Possibly but hard to imagine.

Osmotic pressure being the pressure difference between waters with different salinity (in this case), if we try to imagine it happening in stages, then somehow the water must loose its salinity so that it can be drawn up again to a more saline mixture.

Sideroxylon · 4th March 2021, 04:14 PM

Personal incredulity plus cynicism seems a heady mix.

EHocking · 4th March 2021, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Possibly but hard to imagine.

Osmotic pressure being the pressure difference between waters with different salinity (in this case), if we try to imagine it happening in stages, then somehow the water must loose its salinity so that it can be drawn up again to a more saline mixture.

Sorry - just because you cannot imagine it, and prefer to believe that the water column requires multiple atmospheres of pressure to overcome, does not make the explanation invalid.
The question was not whether you believe it or not, but that it was explained sufficiently to understand.

You are now arguing that you don't like the explanation, not that the explanation was not clear, e.g., your complaint in the OP was

"when questioned about some technical issue, will just throw an impressive sounding line at you, and think they have provided an explanation"

Again, your inability to accept or understand the current example is not becuase of someone throwing an impressive line at you, it is because you do not understand the science behind the explanation, so just dismiss it as it being "an impressive sounding line [thrown] at you".

If you had followed the reference link attached to the explanation
"Xylem transport is driven by a combination[29] of transpirational pull from above and root pressure from below..."
You would get your answer to what transpirational pull and root pressure really are - not what you find "hard to imagine".
https://www.nature.com/scitable/know...ants-103016037

It is unreasonable to dismiss the explanation as "an impressive sounding line" because you do not understand, or accept, the underlying scientific basics of the explanation.

Sideroxylon · 4th March 2021, 05:12 PM

We see a lot of this sort of thing from creationists, homeopaths, psychics etc.

“Scientific knowledge is pretence and explanations fail to pass the sniff test.” This to make room for ideas that fail scientific scrutiny.

2nd March 2021, 07:49 PM	#42
Sideroxylon Featherless biped Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Aporia Posts: 24,465	Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast It's only a tautology if only poppies possess a Somnolent Nature. If there exists a class of objects which possess a Somnolent Nature, then it can be asserted (and makes sense, although it's not strictly speaking implied) that such a Nature is causal. Then explaining the effects of poppies as an example of a larger force at work is not a tautology, Looks like a clear tautology in the context of, “Why does opium cause sleepiness?” Is there any new information here? That there exists some causal nature in opium is implied in the question, while sleep inducing and somnolent are synonyms. The answer certainly seems unsatisfactory as an explanation. If not for being tautological, why does it fail?
	Last edited by Sideroxylon; 2nd March 2021 at 08:04 PM.

3rd March 2021, 05:03 PM	#43
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,689	Originally Posted by theprestige Why would someone with a mere rudimentary understanding of physics think they were entitled to a clear explanation of tree biology? Is that what's got your panties in a bunch? Tree experts aren't bothering to explain their mastery on yourself novice level? Why theprestige you excel yourself with the insults yet again.* The mechanisms used in tree biology must obey the laws of physics. The explanations I see from these experts don't appear to show a knowledge of physics. I see suggestions that trees suck up water. Suck up water over a hight of many many metres which would require a vacuum of many atmospheres. This is impossible don't you know? Perhaps not, maybe your knowledge of physics is not so good. Incidentally I have a good friend who is an agricultural scientist. The question has him stumped. * When you don't have an argument I guess that is all you can do.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

3rd March 2021, 05:18 PM	#44
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,592	Originally Posted by Thor 2 Why theprestige you excel yourself with the insults yet again.* The mechanisms used in tree biology must obey the laws of physics. The explanations I see from these experts don't appear to show a knowledge of physics. I see suggestions that trees suck up water. Suck up water over a hight of many many metres which would require a vacuum of many atmospheres. This is impossible don't you know? Perhaps not, maybe your knowledge of physics is not so good. Incidentally I have a good friend who is an agricultural scientist. The question has him stumped. * When you don't have an argument I guess that is all you can do. This should help you understand that a vacuum of many atmospheres is not required to move water up a tree. The key is the very small diameter of the xylum. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-trees-such-a/
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,592	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald

3rd March 2021, 05:23 PM	#45
gnome Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 11,269	"Because then everyone will want that." Not always an invalid explanation, if it's obvious why everyone availing themselves is a bad idea. But if that's not clear, it makes a frustrating answer.
	__________________

3rd March 2021, 06:06 PM	#47
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,689	Originally Posted by EHocking This should help you understand that a vacuum of many atmospheres is not required to move water up a tree. The key is the very small diameter of the xylum. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-trees-such-a/ Thanks for the input EHocking but I have seen this article, or something similar, before. Look at this excerpt: Quote: This pulling of water, or tension, that occurs in the xylem of the leaf, will extend all the way down through the rest of the xylem column of the tree and into the xylem of the roots due to the cohesive forces holding together the water molecules along the sides of the xylem tubing. (Remember, the xylem is a continuous water column that extends from the leaf to the roots.) Finally, the negative water pressure that occurs in the roots will result in an increase of water uptake from the soil. I call this a typical explanation that isn't. Or it is if you are happy that many atmospheres of vacuum can be created. Perhaps the answer does lie in here somewhere if the water is drawn up in stages but the above talks of a continuous water column.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

2nd March 2021, 07:43 PM	#41
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 50,627	Originally Posted by Thor 2 Well it would seem others here seem to have an inkling of what I am about. Nice conciliatory approach too imply I am ignorant by the way. Try researching how trees manage to pump water from their roots to their leaves, and you will get lots of nonsense and impressive sounding terms, but no clear explanation. Well not an explanation that will satisfy someone with a rudimentary knowledge of physics anyway. Why would someone with a mere rudimentary understanding of physics think they were entitled to a clear explanation of tree biology? Is that what's got your panties in a bunch? Tree experts aren't bothering to explain their mastery on yourself novice level?

3rd March 2021, 06:22 PM	#48
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,592	Originally Posted by Thor 2 Thanks for the input EHocking but I have seen this article, or something similar, before. Look at this excerpt: I call this a typical explanation that isn't. Or it is if you are happy that many atmospheres of vacuum can be created. Perhaps the answer does lie in here somewhere if the water is drawn up in stages but the above talks of a continuous water column. Many atmospheres are not created nor are they necessary. There are many, many resources at your fingertips to help you understand the explanation, e.g., Look up cohesion tension theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylem#...tension_theory It can 'splain it to you, but it can't understand it for you.
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,592	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald

3rd March 2021, 06:31 PM	#49
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,600	Originally Posted by Thor 2 Thanks for the input EHocking but I have seen this article, or something similar, before. Look at this excerpt: Quote: This pulling of water, or tension, that occurs in the xylem of the leaf, will extend all the way down through the rest of the xylem column of the tree and into the xylem of the roots due to the cohesive forces holding together the water molecules along the sides of the xylem tubing. (Remember, the xylem is a continuous water column that extends from the leaf to the roots.) Finally, the negative water pressure that occurs in the roots will result in an increase of water uptake from the soil. I call this a typical explanation that isn't. Or it is if you are happy that many atmospheres of vacuum can be created. Perhaps the answer does lie in here somewhere if the water is drawn up in stages but the above talks of a continuous water column. From a cursory glace at what's highlighted, it looks like the water is maybe pumped up the tree from the bottom. Not sucked from the top. I would also hazard a guess that this is not the only physical principle involved. Surface tension as well, maybe? Osmosis?
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

3rd March 2021, 06:32 PM	#50
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,600	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto From a cursory glace at what's highlighted, it looks like the water is maybe pumped up the tree from the bottom. Not sucked from the top. I would also hazard a guess that this is not the only physical principle involved. Surface tension as well, maybe? Osmosis? Just a WAG. I'm not a botanist.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

3rd March 2021, 06:34 PM	#51
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,592	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto From a cursory glace at what's highlighted, it looks like the water is maybe pumped up the tree from the bottom. Not sucked from the top. I would also hazard a guess that this is not the only physical principle involved. Surface tension as well, maybe? Osmosis? It is both pushed and pulled. See my link above
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,592	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald

3rd March 2021, 11:20 PM	#52
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,689	Originally Posted by EHocking Many atmospheres are not created nor are they necessary. There are many, many resources at your fingertips to help you understand the explanation, e.g., Look up cohesion tension theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylem#...tension_theory It can 'splain it to you, but it can't understand it for you. Thanks again. This is probably one of the most honest articles I have seen on the subject. See the following: Quote: Over the past century, there has been a great deal of research regarding the mechanism of xylem sap transport; today, most plant scientists continue to agree that the cohesion-tension theory best explains this process, but multiforce theories that hypothesize several alternative mechanisms have been suggested, including longitudinal cellular and xylem osmotic pressure gradients, axial potential gradients in the vessels, and gel- and gas-bubble-supported interfacial gradients.[26][27] You see the above. They are still hypothesising about the subject, and yet you will find articles where some will say it is still this or that with absolute confidence. They throw in words like osmosis and capillary action etc but no detail about how it happens. Any scientist will also ask the question: "Where and how does the energy come from to do the work?" I know they will just throw at you "It comes from the Sun", but no detail is given about the mechanism. If the mechanism was so well understood then why can't we copy it. Lots of water needs pumping.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

3rd March 2021, 11:24 PM	#53
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,689	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto From a cursory glace at what's highlighted, it looks like the water is maybe pumped up the tree from the bottom. Not sucked from the top. I would also hazard a guess that this is not the only physical principle involved. Surface tension as well, maybe? Osmosis? Surface tension or capillary action and osmosis are tiny forces.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

3rd March 2021, 11:26 PM	#54
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,592	Originally Posted by Thor 2 Thanks again. This is probably one of the most honest articles I have seen on the subject. See the following: You see the above. They are still hypothesising about the subject, and yet you will find articles where some will say it is still this or that with absolute confidence. They throw in words like osmosis and capillary action etc but no detail about how it happens. Any scientist will also ask the question: "Where and how does the energy come from to do the work?" I know they will just throw at you "It comes from the Sun", but no detail is given about the mechanism. If the mechanism was so well understood then why can't we copy it. Lots of water needs pumping. The sun -> evaporation at stomata-> cohesive tension. Rather than do this piecemeal it would be more advantageous to you to read an article on the entire process. You not understanding how osmosis or capillary action is relevant is not the authors issue IMO.
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,592	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald

3rd March 2021, 11:29 PM	#55
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,689	What I am trying to point out here is that many, when asked a technical, or other, question, will just throw in some impressive sounding words and walk away. Many, such as theprestige, will be satisfied. I am not.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

3rd March 2021, 11:36 PM	#56
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,689	Originally Posted by EHocking The sun -> evaporation at stomata-> cohesive tension. Rather than do this piecemeal it would be more advantageous to you to read an article on the entire process. You not understanding how osmosis or capillary action is relevant is not the authors issue IMO. I am familiar with osmosis and capillary action, but they are tiny forces.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

3rd March 2021, 11:41 PM	#57
Sideroxylon Featherless biped Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Aporia Posts: 24,465	Originally Posted by Thor 2 What I am trying to point out here is that many, when asked a technical, or other, question, will just throw in some impressive sounding words and walk away. Many, such as theprestige, will be satisfied. I am not. Sounds like a lot of cynicism going on.

4th March 2021, 12:18 AM	#58
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,689	Originally Posted by Sideroxylon Sounds like a lot of cynicism going on. Oh yes! Lots of it.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

4th March 2021, 07:42 AM	#59
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,600	Originally Posted by Thor 2 I am familiar with osmosis and capillary action, but they are tiny forces. Maybe, but that us not to say that their effects cannot be cumulative.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

4th March 2021, 02:18 PM	#60
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,689	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto Maybe, but that us not to say that their effects cannot be cumulative. Possibly but hard to imagine. Osmotic pressure being the pressure difference between waters with different salinity (in this case), if we try to imagine it happening in stages, then somehow the water must loose its salinity so that it can be drawn up again to a more saline mixture.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

4th March 2021, 04:14 PM	#61
Sideroxylon Featherless biped Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Aporia Posts: 24,465	Personal incredulity plus cynicism seems a heady mix.

4th March 2021, 04:17 PM	#62
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,592	Originally Posted by Thor 2 Possibly but hard to imagine. Osmotic pressure being the pressure difference between waters with different salinity (in this case), if we try to imagine it happening in stages, then somehow the water must loose its salinity so that it can be drawn up again to a more saline mixture. Sorry - just because you cannot imagine it, and prefer to believe that the water column requires multiple atmospheres of pressure to overcome, does not make the explanation invalid. The question was not whether you believe it or not, but that it was explained sufficiently to understand. You are now arguing that you don't like the explanation, not that the explanation was not clear, e.g., your complaint in the OP was "when questioned about some technical issue, will just throw an impressive sounding line at you, and think they have provided an explanation" Again, your inability to accept or understand the current example is not becuase of someone throwing an impressive line at you, it is because you do not understand the science behind the explanation, so just dismiss it as it being "an impressive sounding line [thrown] at you". If you had followed the reference link attached to the explanation "Xylem transport is driven by a combination[29] of transpirational pull from above and root pressure from below..." You would get your answer to what transpirational pull and root pressure really are - not what you find "hard to imagine". https://www.nature.com/scitable/know...ants-103016037 It is unreasonable to dismiss the explanation as "an impressive sounding line" because you do not understand, or accept, the underlying scientific basics of the explanation.
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,592	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald

4th March 2021, 05:12 PM	#63
Sideroxylon Featherless biped Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Aporia Posts: 24,465	We see a lot of this sort of thing from creationists, homeopaths, psychics etc. “Scientific knowledge is pretence and explanations fail to pass the sniff test.” This to make room for ideas that fail scientific scrutiny.