|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Not as common as I thought, apparently.
This is the reason we need science to root out what "seems" legit from what "is" legit.
"Armchair philosophy" is fine for moral and ethical discussions, but it fails when it comes to making measurable predictions about the world.
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It was, did you not read it?
Your statement of plausibility is fine, but it is not a proof, no matter how "reasonable" it sounds.
My critiques:
You've approximated the amount of some human skin dust which you expect in some situations, not all dust in all situations.
You've ignored the amount of dust which is mites and the mites' excrement.
You have not compared those amounts of dust to amounts of dust from other sources.
You have not demonstrated the comparative mass of these sources, as your analysis is based on surface area.
You have not made it clear whether or not you include elements like hair and other macroscopic particles which are commonly mixed in with the household dust, and which I would be hard pressed in a less formal discussion to disagree that stuff is dust.
In short, you've made an argument that human skin is not all of the dust, but you haven't given any context over how much of the dust it is.
Your calculations seem reasonable, but need to now be buoyed by data to support your assumptions.
|
Reply With Quote