CCL: Help needed from Dr. Eric Scerri

 Sent to CCL by: Sengen Sun [sengensun .]
 Dear Dr. Scerri,
 I noticed on the CCL that you advertised your FOCH
 journal/your book(s) over, and over, and over, ......,
 and over again. I hope that you and your organization
 have made a good profit from it.
 I do recognize that your motivation for the
 advertisements is not only to make money, but also to
 stimulate scientific and philosophical discussions on
 theoretical chemistry. I greatly appreciate what you
 did as we have something in common in this regard. As
 a university Professor, a journal Editor, and a
 philosopher as you claimed, you must know well what
 you posted, you will take care of what you posted, and
 you are responsible to address some issues that other
 CCLers may have.
 I read seriously and very carefully two FOCH papers.
 One is the recent one by Shahbazian & Zahedi,
 Published Print: February 2006. And the other is
 titled THEORETICAL CHEMISTRY by Roald Hoffmann
 (Foundations of Chemistry 2004, Volume 6: Page 11).
 I have unresolvable conflicts in my mind on these two
 papers. Therefore, I have to consult you. Please
 kindly help me. And I will greatly appreciate it.
 Here are some questions I have:
 1. In the statement "The sp3 hybridization of the
 carbon atom in methane causes its tetrahedral
 geometry", do you think the word "cause" is mis-used?
 If so, do you think the "mis-use" is justified? In the
 other words, do you think that correct use of words
 should be banned occassionally in science and
 2. In my opinion, logic - the key element of
 philosophy of science is messed up everywhere in the
 paper by Shahbazian and Zahedi. If neccessary, I can
 compile a list of examples of anti-logic statements in
 that paper. As the journal Editor, are you aware of
 these problems?
 3. What made you recommend the paper by Shahbazian and
 Zahedi to the CCL? "The most viewed" is misleading and
 cannot justify its merit simply because many people
 like me were allured by its title. To me, it is time-
 and life-wasting to read its content.
 4. How does the paper by Hoffmann contribute to
 science and philosophy in a FOCH journal? Is it a
 poem, philosophy, or science?
 5. Hoffmann mentioned a friend he met in his paper.
 Do you know who is the friend and what his friend did
 in science?
 6. Wasn't it an accident that a section of References
 was missing in Hoffmann's paper? At least, there
 should be a section of Notes. Without these sections,
 many people like me will never ever understand
 anything in it.
 Finally, I'd like to invite you to comment on possible
 roles of "Prestige, power and money" in science and
 philosophy, as I commented in the PhilChem List just a
 few weeks ago in response to an internet post from
 Yuehui Zhou. Frankly, Yuehui's post reminded me
 whether your FOCH journal like some other scientific
 journals is influenced in some degree by "Prestige,
 power and money" and contains some biased political
 tricks. What are your measures or philosophy to make
 sure that you are free from these bad influences. I
 think it benefits your FOCH journal to clarify this
 Thanks. Good luck to your philosophy and your FOCH
 journal/your books.
 Best regards,
 Do You Yahoo!?
 Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around