# data[].attributes.body
this back and forth "argument" between the 2 scientists highlighted the importance between the use of proper keywords and nomenclature in the study of not only chemistry, but sciences in general.

# data[].attributes.body
I realised that there is much more to chemistry than being just a subject. The concepts and knowledge of chemistry are constantly changing and being challenged. However, this is an essential step to take in order to advance and deepen our understanding of chemistry. I deeply appreciate the efforts made by both scientists to raise the valid points that are worthy of being discussed.
Kerine

# data[].attributes.body
Upon reading both articles, my perspective towards Science has changed as I have never once imagined that there would be such meaningful interactions and debates going on between scientists/researchers. I feel that both parties have raised valid and insightful points that are noteworthy of, though I have to admit that they were being very passive aggressive in an attempt to win the so called argument. Nonetheless, it was undeniably very interesting to be able to look at things from two contrasting point of views.

# data[].attributes.body
To me, the articles illustrated how in fields of science such as Chemistry, scientific knowledge is not the only thing that matters. For instance, the debacle regarding whether or not the electrons really have been observed reflects epistemological concepts, namely scientific realism versus instrumentalism, showing how knowledge outside of the scientific realm, critical thinking skills, as well as a good command of language is important in not only presenting your work to the scientific community, but also in defending it against skeptics. The articles also show that scientific knowledge as we know it is constantly changing; as such, in order to progress, we should constantly question and engage in meaningful discourse.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading the insightful and lengthy articles, I realise that the deeper we delve into the topic of orbitals, the more I actually don't know about it. I have always thought that Chemistry is an unrefutable subject as it is supported by hard facts, yet, these 2 articles proved me wrong as the researchers managed to debate about whether orbitals could really be observed. Seems like the world of Science is still fraught with ambiguity and requires like-minded individuals to crack the codes of scientific mysteries.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading through the 2 articles, I have realised how much more we could really learn and build upon our existing knowledge about chemistry and orbitals more specifically. I appreciate the efforts of scientists who have worked so hard to try and help us correct previously flawed concepts and even going to the extent of defending their research results against a large scienticfic committee, but this also showcases that there may be many different unknowns and uncertainties in the world of chemistry we know today.

# data[].attributes.body
The interaction between both individuals has shown me that science is always evolving. The more we learn, the less we know. The articles have showcased the passion Scerri and Zuo have for chemistry and how they express deep concern about how chemistry is educated to the public, especially the choice of words used. Their meaningful interaction exhibited their different point of view, giving them the opportunity to learn from one another. Although I may not have fully comprehend the chemistry knowledge, I have learnt that there is more to chemistry than just concepts and research.

# data[].attributes.body
i realised that chemistry is actually more than just a subject. right now with our current technology, many things are yet to be discovered or proved. However, scientists debate through articles, either to further approve one’s stand or to disagree one’s stand respectfully.  With these articles, we get to learn more about the different views of the same thing(orbitals).

# data[].attributes.body
I understood that some people really have a deep passion for chemistry and are constantly stepping up their research to expand the frontiers of chemistry. I also found out that chemistry theories are constantly evolving and being challenged, and not as simple as we think. If chemistry experts can challenge each other's theories in a respectful way, many new discoveries may be uncovered.

# data[].attributes.body
I thoroughly enjoyed reading the multiple articles. I was also surprised at how two extremely qualified professionals in the same field were able to disagree, albeit 'disrespectfully', and really puts into perspective the level of comprehension and the amount of information that one has to learn to be considered a professional. At that high of a level, where research is independent and you are pioneering new developments in a field, it is interesting to see how people with differing opinions are still able to have passably civil discussions in their respective fields, as this is what will propel and facilitate the expansion of a field, such as chemistry.

# data[].attributes.body
My brain is too small to fully comprehend the big brain scientists but I am genuinely inspired by Professor Scerri and Zuo and co-worker's passion for Science. Despite both parties being passive aggressive in their arguments, I think that they have each raised valid points that are worth considering.

# data[].attributes.body
I found the discussion to be unexpectedly intense and back-and-forth. It is notable that both Professor Scerri and Zuo and co raised valid points in their arguments, however was this all really necessary? While their passion is certainly commendable, in the end, it seems like a matter of pride to me, where either side is unwilling to back down and admit that they used incorrect phrasing. Which is also a very strange thing to argue about. Considering how Professor Scerri is renowned for his research on the philosophy of chemistry however, this nitpicking is more or less expected. In conclusion, I think that time could have been spent doing more productive things rather than passive-aggressively arguing with one another about whether or not a phrase was misused in an article.

Sigmund

# data[].attributes.body
After reading the scientific articles, I was surprised to learn that covalent bonds are formed between copper atoms in copper oxides since we were only taught that metals only form metallic bonds with each other. Moreover, I was also rather intrigued by the mass discussion that had taken place within the scientists on orbitals.

# data[].attributes.body
I thought the discussion was unexpected and eye-opening. It was refreshing to be exposed to a side of Chemistry different from what we learnt in school. The passion in the arguments by the Scientists as well as the exciting debates were very insightful. While I did not understand a lot of technical terms, reading the rebuttals made me feel that the process of discovery in the Scientific community was fascinating.

- Le Shyan

# data[].attributes.body
i think it’s rlly entertaining to watch prominent researchers engage in such seemingly “trivial’ and “petty” arguments and going back-and-forth with each other to prove the other wrong. today’s lesson certainly allowed me to see another dimension of chemistry i did not expect. but nonetheless i feel that these opposing opinions are what makes the science community so enthralling and fascinating. i hope the teachers marking our scripts will not replicate their energy

# data[].attributes.body
I think at my current level, there are many things technical I do not understand with regards to the critique of Zuo and team's breakthrough and defence. I found it eye-opening into the world that scientists live in.

I was curious about the distinction between "Orbitals" and "Electron Density" since what we learn states that orbitals are where there is a highest probability of finding electrons (90% and above), I assumed they were somewhat related as even though orbits were a mathematical construct to help visualise the location of electrons and are technically not visible as they are not "physical things", I felt it could be
derived as "visible" based on electron density and that the critique was not really valid. Then again, there are many technicalities I am unaware of and the definition we learn is a simplified one.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that there is a lot of meaningful discussion within the chemistry society and I feel that as long as they are respectful when responding to each other, it would be very meaningful. I did not know that these discussions took place and it was good to know.

angel

# data[].attributes.body
I was surprised to find that the science community was so actively involved in discussions and debates. I thought that both sides presented their points in a coherent way but also tried to acknowledge the positive points of the other party in a respectful way. As such, I believe that both parties have raised meaningful and relevant points and perhaps the disagreement stems from different interpretations of certain scientific ideas. (Ashley)

# data[].attributes.body
As the famous explorer Mr Wong once said, we must have open discussions in an open and respectful manner. While both sides did write a reasonable and sound article reflecting their deep passion and interest for Chemistry, their tone was quite subtly passive-aggressive (especially the part on the Dictionary Term of orbitals). I am not going to lie this reminded me of sec 3 Instagram drama rants and was quite funny to read, but really made me question the professionalism of the authors (Jk).

In conclusion, it’s great to see a science community be so lively and critical.
-Jun Feng

# data[].attributes.body
I think the scientists must be very passionate about chemistry to go to great lengths in replying each other using such intense language.
I do think that Zuo and co-workers are somehow in the wrong as the title is indeed very misleading as Prof Scerri pointed out which might confuse readers and fellow chemistry learners.