last day (22 days later) » 

Feeds
Feeds
04:51
1
A: Does grass alone produce enough oxygen for life?

y chungNo. The pure reason why some areas (with a particular set of meteorological and soil conditions) nurture trees (and establish themselves as stable forests) is because they are in general more efficient photosynthesizers (on a spatial basis) in that area. That is just pure survival of the fittest...

Oddthinking
Oddthinking
Welcome to Skeptics! "That is just pure survival of the fittest" isn't a very strong argument. It is an appeal to common sense. This answer would be improved by links to the definition of NPP, direct quotes from the paper, some reason to believe that - even if someone accepts grass has a lower NPP, that it is insufficient for life, and a reason to not accept the other arguments (e.g. that plants are Oxygen neutral over their lifecycle)
y chung
y chung
Did you not see the two papers to support my argument (not direct quote, but almost exactly as shown in the papers)? Common sense or not, this is what scientific evidence have shown
Excessive reliance on direct quotes are equivalent to appeal to authority and a gateway to cherrypicking...any person with the right skeptical mind should read the full papers. Talking about making arguments...
Oddthinking
Oddthinking
"Excessive reliance on direct quotes are equivalent to appeal to authority" [citation-needed!] "a gateway to cherrypicking" A worse problem is people who distort the findings of their references so much they can't find appropriate quotes. Any True Scotsman Skeptic might read the full papers, but they aren't who you are writing for here. The answerer reads the papers, and distill them for a "popular" audience. There are skeptics in the audience that are here to check your references and question your arguments.
y chung
y chung
If you want a meaningful quotation without appeal to authority, you need context, basically mean to quote everything i.e. no difference from reading the paper. Distillation and synthesizing of the main point that answers the question involves writing in your own words. That's the most basic thing that was taught to every researcher about research ethics. And no one should challenge a point related to cited references without reading the references.
Oddthinking
Oddthinking
Such a black-and-white view of communication misses the point of popularising science. It reminds me of the Shakespeare quote. (Oh, it wouldn't do to actually directly quote him here.)
y chung
y chung
04:51
You are the one who thinks that direct quoting is necessarily better than writing in your own words in an argument in the first place. Talk about black and white...
Oddthinking
Oddthinking
@ychung "direct quoting is necessarily better than writing in your own words" This is a strawman.
I said THIS answer would be improved with direct quotes. I meant as an addition to support your least clearly supported claims.
Quotes are helpful because if your links break, it will still make sense, and people will have a better chance of finding a new working link.
Quotes are helpful because not everyone has a spare $US49 to read the links you provided behind a paywall, or access to institutional libraries.
Quotes are helpful because not everyone is a "real skeptic" as you define it, and has time to read the entire paper (and all of its references, etc.) looking for the bit that supports your claim. Many of our readers come here because skeptics do a lot of the work for them.
Quotes are helpful because there are many cases where people claim a reference supports them, but it turns out it doesn't. Providing a quote that directly supports the claim reduces the chance the paper is being misused.
Meanwhile, you can look all you like in textbooks about evolution, and none of them will say that "pure survival of the fittest" will predict that trees are more efficient than grass at photosynthesis. The way you find that out is by empirical measurement, not appeal to a theory. You should remove that furphy.
You also have not shown that if the trees were all replaced by grasses, that the lower NPP would mean that there was insufficient oxygen for life. Your answer should address the claim.
y chung
y chung
05:45
You clearly have not understood the core of an argument. Having an argument has nothing to do with trying to popularize science/please the public. Getting the highest vote is never my aim. If you do not like the argument, make a suggestion once, but not telling me consistently that something else would be "better" because clearly it isnt necessarily the case (as you do not want to admit you have a black and white stance). About your actual challenge to the content of my answers: 1. "you can look all you like in textbooks about evolution, and none of them will say that "pure survival of the …
y chung
y chung
05:58
If an organism is able to utilize resources more efficiently in an environment (where photosynthesis is one way of utilizing resources), it will do better (to survive). Just a general rule, I used it because I think that is easy to understand. (too long, contune next message).
I never said it is true in all cases tree > grass in being efficient in photosynthesis like you claimed I said. My definition of efficient is in terms of NPP, I think I put enough emphasis in the answer on this (while I understand there may be some other meaning associated with efficient, like per unit biomass).
y chung
y chung
06:14
In the same environment, tree and grass is in a competition relationship mainly (at least in the spatial sense). Being more efficient in photosynthesis (on a spatial basis, i.e NPP) means one can occupy the habitat/space more efficiently. If one can displace the other and establish themselves, it means it is fitter.

  last day (22 days later) »