Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Create Supersolid From Helium
jabberjaw writes "Nature is reporting that Pennsylvania State University researchers Eun-Seong Kim and Moses Chan have created a 'supersolid' from helium-4. Although a crystalline solid, the supersolid can flow much like a liquid. This is due to the fact that the empty compartments in the crystal move coherently, thus waves can progress through the lattice. The supersolid state can be compared to the superfluid state. Perhaps a condensed matter physicist can dumb the article down for layfolk such as myself?"
...or at least how to google.
Why is it that otherwise intelligent people can't get their heads round spelling simple words? Or are unable to differentiate between two similarly spelt (yes, spelt, not spelled) words that have different meanings?
If you don't know the difference between a "principle" and a "principal" then go find out. On principle, I won't spoonfeed you with relevant links; you can go do the legwork yourself for once.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
For what it's worth, though you're mostly correct, it's a falsehood, not a fallacy. A falsehood is a piece of incorrect information - a myth, a popular misconception, a lie. A fallacy is a conclusion reached from information (whether or not the information is correct is unimportant) where the reasoning suffers a flaw.
Examples:
"Rubenstein's paper shows that white men named
Tim have three arms." Falsehood: there is no
such paper.
"John Q. Scientist agrees with me, so I'm
right." Fallacy: appeal to authority
(argumentum ad verecundiam.)
"4=5." Falsehood.
"Because 4=5, and because in a=b a*c=b*c, then
8=10." Falsehood. The reasoning is correct,
but the underlying information is in error.
"Because a*c=b*c and a+c=b+c, then for any
operator ?, a?c=b?c" Fallacy: operators do
not have the same rules, so you may not infer
rules by commonality (Accident, Hasty
Generalization)
"Because 4=5, and because a?c=b?c,
then 4*2=5*2, so 8=10." Both a fallacy and a
falsehood. I duplicated the above example to
demonstrate that a fallacy can lead to
seemingly correct reasoning. I stuck with the
falsehood to show that fallacious reasoning
which leads to correct reasoning isn't
therefore somehow absolved; it's still a
falsehood.
"Because 1=1, and because a?c=b?c, then
1*2=1*2, or 2=2." A fallacy can in fact lead
to both seemingly good reasoning and seemingly
correct results. Frequently, someone will
attempt a bait and switch, using a cursory
example like this which fails to display a
flaw in reasoning to try to establish said
reasoning as correct, and then lead into the
incorrect results. How many times have you
heard, in moral rather than mathematical
context, something like "you wouldn't
challenge that 2=2, would you? or that
1*2+3*2=4*2? or that 3*2=1*2+2*2? so then
if 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, then clearly 3+4=5. how
can you challenge that?" That is argument by
generalization, and frequently includes
unrepresentative samples, false analogies,
and fallacies of exclusion.
Sorry about the pedantry; I just hate to see people call things fallacies or falsehoods which aren't.
StoneCypher is Full of BS