/sci/ - Science & Math

>there is nothing you can know for certain
If you want to larp as a /lit/ tourist you should at least know Descartes' cogito.

Learn some physics retard

>>14774397
That Venn diagram doesn't capture the 'justified' part of the traditional justified-true-belief model of epistemology, but this falls to Gettier problems anyway.
>but there is nothing you can know for certain
The ancient retort is that this would mean you can't be certain that "there is nothing you can know for certain," but if we ignore this and all the silly word games, all the analytic statements, some Cartesian variants, and whatnot, you are correct. Scientists aren't dealing with absolute certainties, and good scientists will admit that.

>>14774397
the belief in something being correct doesn't make it right.

>>14774429
there is scientific uncertainty that expresses itself in measurement errors and then there is a more fundamental uncertainty about reality. The collection of things we can experience could only be a tiny fraction of everything, and the things we cannot experience may outweigh our current reality by greater amounts. There is obviously a question regarding practicality, since by assumption those things, while possibly existing somewhere/somehow, are out of reach so why bother anyways if we can never experience them? Well, we don't even know if we can't experience them at all. This also raises the question about the definitions of existence and reality.

>>14774429
>complains about "silly word games"
>unironically mentions JTB and Gettier as if this was at the core of epistemology
You're some special kind of retarded pseud, aren't you?

if you jump off a cliff, you won't be able to fly. this much i know for certain. you can try to prove me wrong though

go back to /lit/ you insufferable cunt

>>14774469
> noooo not on my board!!!
> we only discuss our IQ here, which is far more scientific than fundamental questions about truth, knowledge and experience

>>14774465
are you sure? you may think that I am not flying, you may even think that I 'am'. But do you know for certain that everything you see is not just spanned by a simulation, including me jumping off a cliff? You might be hooked up to a simulator without knowing so. In so far does that mean I 'really' jumped off a cliff and died, or might it have just been something you were believed to see?

>>14774475
All fundamental questions about truth, knowledge and experience have been solved.

>>14774475
IQ threads are just as pointless
now take my advice and fuck off

>>14774459
Your poor reading comprehension evinces your low IQ. You are nothing. Fecal matter flushed.

>>14774487
Your ad hominum confirms I'm right.

>>14774459
way to misunderstand a post, you aggro fucking brainlet
>>14774455
op is obviously talking about "fundamental uncertainty about reality"
>>14774465
you don't know it with absolute certainty. you know it only by some measure of inductive strength. sorry, brainlet.

>>14774490
Learn to spell, you redneck garbage.
INB4 "hrrhrr, newfag detected, just pretending to be stupid."

>>14774490
>this lack of self-awareness
no doubt another nigger case of
YOU'RE DROPPING AD HOMS, I'M JUST INSULTING

>>14774494
Orthography is for midwits who can't talk about abstract contents. The midwit is always excited to find a spelling mistake because it frees him from the burden of having to discuss on a factual level. Whether someone can ignore spelling mistakes is one of the best indicators to distinguish between midwits and smart people.

>>14774496
>look at me, I'm using the n-word on heckin 4channel
Back to /pol/, reddit tourist.

>>14774499
The brainlet will always spin his hamster wheel with pretentious cope to excuse the fact that his malfunctioning brain has poor attention to detail.

>>14774502
Your midwitted posts are too irrelevant to be worthy of paying attention to detail.

>>14774501
look at this reddit troon trying so hard to shoehorn his behavior as the 4chan norm
he's all over the place
embarrassing

>>14774506
Yes, I already know that you didn't read my posts with attention to detail.

>>14774499
>Orthography is for midwits who can't talk about abstract contents. The midwit is always excited to find a spelling mistake because it frees him from the burden of having to discuss on a factual level. Whether someone can ignore spelling mistakes is one of the best indicators to distinguish between midwits and smart people.

why do soience jaks cry so hard when you tell them that their soience isn't known with absolute certainty? no actual scientists of note are that insecure

>>14774519
go back retard

>>14774525
you will never be a scientist

>>14774527
You will never be a philosopher.

>>14774397
can there be such thing as objective truth?

>>14774591
Yes. All a priori knowledge.

>>14774515
What even is that picture supposed to say? Smart people are automatically ugly and racist? Well, I'm only ugly but not racist.

>>14774593
proofs?

>>14774605
Yes, proofs using deductive reasoning from true premises also constitute objective truth.

>>14774593
>>14774610
you did not prove that your axioms/a priori knowledges are true. also you can't prove them without assuming objective truth in the first place (an axiom is essentially assumed objective truth).

>>14774397
You can know what the world appears to be like and you can know what kind of natural laws can explain your observations in a logical manner. That kind of knowledge is what science is about.

>>14774531
you will always be unable to state the most profound philosophical idea you know

>>14774610
A priori knowledge is fantasy. How it can be true at all? It's fully detached from reality.
You also need to prove that deductive reasoning is correct as we know for a fact that people are too lazy to think rigorously.

>>14774603
presumably it means that when a redneck retard tries so hard to sound like a fedora midwit, the result is worse than either a redneck retard or a fedora midwit

>>14774731
NPC opinion. NPCs can't into a priori. That's why they can't derive truth on their own but have to rely on an authority to tell them what to think.

>>14774610
Okay, so objectively prove the validity of modus ponens.

>>14774895
You demand a proof without deductive reasoning. Since I'm not allowed to use logic then, I'll choose the proof via superior intellectual intuition. My IQ is higher than yours and I intuitively feel that modus ponens is valid. QED.

>>14774920
>My IQ is higher than yours
Entirely possible, that's a falsifiable claim. Post proof.

>>14774939
>133
Lmao, peak midwit.

>>14774397
Were y'all just bullied by engineers for not being able to do anything practical so you make these threads to try and dunk on people that don't care about your existence?

If so i respect it. Love the petty here.

>>14774948
Yeah yeah, now post proof.

>>14774954
>y'all
Opinion discarded.

>>14774455
>uncertainty about reality
>reality
In general semantics that is called a grandiose abstraction (which favoured by materialsts over the corresponding non-materialists', "Truth"). You can tell an abstraction is grandiose when the scope of the adjective it is derived from is greater than the opposite of such adjective.

>>14774455
>uncertainty about reality
>reality
In general semantics that is called a grandiose abstraction (that particular one is favoured by materialsts over the corresponding non-materialists', "Truth"). You can tell an abstraction is grandiose when the scope of the adjective it is derived from is greater than the opposite of such adjective.

>>14774963
>Linguistic prescriptivist for english
Brainlet detected

>>14774939
Uh, anon. You're braver than most of us are, but 133 is a midwit IQ. Don't fall into the percentile trap. It's not news that the overwhelming majority of people are idiots.

Did you know that the WAIS-IV scores up to "160+" and that there are expected to be around 250,000 in the world with an IQ of 160 alone? Think about that. No competitive physical athlete would be happy about not making this sub-top group of around 250,000 individuals. Yet it seems we have to provide copes for mental athletes.

>>14774992
>"Moron" was coined in 1910 by psychologist Henry H. Goddard[4] from the Ancient Greek word μωρός (moros), which meant "dull"[5] and used to describe a person with a mental age in adulthood of between 7 and 10 on the Binet scale.[6] It was once applied to people with an IQ of 51–70, being superior in one degree to "imbecile" (IQ of 26–50) and superior in two degrees to "idiot" (IQ of 0–25). The word moron, along with others including, "idiotic", "imbecilic", "stupid", and "feeble-minded", was formerly considered a valid descriptor in the psychological community, but it is now deprecated in use by psychologists.

>>14774939
>confident because of 133
kek, this is the person "correcting" you in all those math threads. you know the one with shitty reading comprehension who glosses over your careful choice of words? we need to gas these overconfident people in the 120-140 range, and even that upper bound of 140 is pretty fucking generous.

>>14775002
Breaking news: "midwit" isn't being used as a technical term either.

>>14774956
I'm two standard deviations above you and I won't bother showing you any proof.

>>14774403
how can he do that when he can't know anything for certain?

>>14774963
kek'd

>>14774992
>133 is a midwit IQ
I'm aware. That's why I asked the other anon how to go about proving the objective validity of modus ponens rather than flatly asserting it can't be done - I know damn well that there are people out there brighter than I am. However, it doesn't seem like that anon is one of them, considering he resorted to argumentum ad dicksizium. But if that's how he wants to play, I'll whip it out. I've got nothing to be ashamed of. The fact that he's still hiding his in his pants should tell you something.
>>14775006
>confident
I'm confident that the other anon won't post proof, yes.
>this is the person "correcting" you in all those math threads
I was all over that Brazilian Math Olympiad post a while back, true. The number of posters on this board who don't understand logical quantification is astounding.
>>14775038
That may very well be, but self-diagnosed IQ isn't valid and you're still no closer to an objective proof of modus ponens.

>>14774980
It's strictly an aesthetic preference. You aren't incorrect for saying 'y'all,' you're just sending a clear signal that I want nothing to do with you.

>>14775256
>hurr durr I've taken an undergrad course on formal logic and learned the definition of a logical calculus
>now I feel like the king of logic on 4channel
Why are midwitted CS students so insufferable?

>>14775273
No cap? Fr fr?

>>14775341
>king of logic
No. I'm the guy who's been pushing Bonevac's "Deduction" whenever anons ask where to start with learning logic. I might be slightly guilty of fanboy-ism, but I'm definitely not self-aggrandizing.
>CS students
I majored in math, and I haven't been a student in fourteen years.

>>14775436
You're in your thirties now and still argue like a teenaged pseud? Impressive.

>>14775713
Possible. I haven't been a teenager in a long time, and I still have a few years before my oldest child becomes one, so I'm not sure how teenagers argue. I think it's more likely that you're projecting and butthurt, but I could be wrong. Can you provide a convincing argument that my style of argumentation is significantly similar to that of a "teenage pseud"? If so, I may need to re-evaluate my rhetorical style.

>>14775764
See for example >>14774895. What even is the point you're trying to make here? You wanna discuss some homework exercise in formal logic proving that modus ponens can be equivalent to some other rule of inference? Then make another thread about it and introduce proper notation. You want to make some point against the use of logic itself akin to "hurr durr u logically can't prove logic"? Well, that's just obnoxious and immature on a moral as well as on an intellectual level.

>>14774397
Okay.

>>14775793
>What even is the point you're trying to make here?
That post responds to a chain of posts that begins with
>>14774591
>>14774593
i.e. "all a priori knowledge is objectively true." My point is if you can't prove modus ponens to be objectively true, then how can any chain of reasoning that relies upon modus ponens yield objective truth?

>>14775793
>some point against the use of logic itself akin to "hurr durr u logically can't prove logic"?
My only point of contention was with the adjective"objective."

>>14775817
So your point is that you don't understand what a priori means? Why is it always the philosophy posters who know the least about philosophy?

>>14775817
NTA but that's what axioms are for. You can't prove the tool necessary for proving something, that's obvious. Otherwise you run into issues like the Münchhausen/Aggripean Trilemma where you repeatedly ask 'why are your arguments true? prove your last justification'. The axioms of logic are usually accepted and it's fairly reasonable to do so (True and true make true, false and false make false, etc.) Modus ponens follows immediately as a tautology then. iirc Hilbert derived logic foundations using solemnly implication (and some other logic operator) and I assume he used axioms that lead to modus ponens or some other deductive rule, but I did not read his work.

>>14775866
A priori means rooted in reason, as opposed to a posteriori, rooted in experience. That a given measure of knowledge is rooted in reason does not entail said measure's objectivity. Euclid's Elements is a priori, does that make it objectively true? Does that make non-Euclidean geometry objectively false? (Which is equivalent to asking: correspondence or coherence theory of truth?)

>>14775929
Axiomatic reasoning is one of the legs of the Münchhausen/Aggripean Trilemma.
>The axioms of logic are usually accepted
Either you're talking down to me, or maybe I should be talking down to you. There isn't a singular logic to accept. A logic is a set of axioms and rules of inference. Which axioms and which rules of inference you include in a given logic is a function of what you want to do with that logic. The choice is subjective.

>>14775937
>A priori means rooted in reason.
This is not the meaning of a priori. A priori vs a posteriori is more than the distinction between rationalism vs empiricism.

>Euclid's elements is a priori
Highly questionable claim

>Does that make non-Euclidean geometry objectively false?
Retarded false dichotomy. Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry are not in conflict. They can be easily and consistently unified in more than one way. You'd know this if you actually studied math as you claim. But instead you threw away your alleged math education only to promote a popular misunderstanding of Kantian philosophy which you copied from some other pseud who hasn't understood Kant.

>>14775981
My university offered a single undergrad geometry course, and while we covered three possible variations on the parallel postulate, we certainly didn't get as far as unifying them. I also minored in philosophy, which involved mostly sleeping through a course on metaphysics and still getting an A because all I had to do was write. That was over a decade ago.

My point is, I don't expect my arguments to stand. I post them anonymously because I want them to be knocked down. Seeing how that's done is how I make my arguments better. But you standing on the sidelines saying "this guy's arguments are dumb, I could totally knock them down" isn't knocking them down.

>>14775971
what do you expect from an 'objective proof'? what does that even mean? obviously if you won't accept any axiomatic grounding you will run into one of the other two paths of the trilemma which will be unsatisfactory. An objective proof can be objective insofar as you stay within the realm of your axioms. those axioms can of course be subjective (see finitists disagreeing with ZF), but the reasoning inside that system is purely objective, almost mechanical. That being said if your own subjective axioms somehow don't align with the common laws of logic I'd question their usefulness or validity and you should probably do so aswell. So one could argue that 'A and B is true when both A is true and B is true' is an universal, objective law.

>>14776006
>My university
Anon, a shitty university is no excuse. If you want to act like an intellectual you gotta be curious like an intellectual and learn a lot of stuff on your own.

>>14774397
>there is nothing you can know for certain.

This is a certainty.
Rip

>>14776035
but I don't know that for certain

>>14776032
>I could prove you wrong, I just don't want to.
Okay. I'm not even doubting you, I've certainly been too busy with real life to bother continuing a 4chan thread. And I always give up on any Anon who shows they're too stubborn to even conceive of the possibility that they could be wrong. So "I could prove you wrong, I just don't want to" is cool. Have a good one bro.

>>14776027
>what do you expect from an 'objective proof'?
I don't believe any such thing exists.

>>14776074
>>I could prove you wrong, I just don't want to
You didn't post anything worthy of being proven wrong. You merely asked some inappropriate questions revealing your misunderstanding. The only thing to be considered falsifiable in your posts was the claim about geometry which I addressed. If you need a more detailed geometry lecture you'll have to pay me at least 100€ per hour.

>too stubborn to even conceive of the possibility that they could be wrong
I enjoy being proven wrong and to learn something new from it. However, this requires that the anon proving me wrong is at least on my level and understands what I'm saying. Unfortunately, our IQ difference and the difference in our educational background are too large for this to happen.

>>14776097
By entering the discussion you have silently agreed to the terms and conditions, the first of which says you will accept logical arguments. Your rejection of logic disqualifies you from the debate.

>>14776097
what about 'if A is true then the negation of A is false' or even simpler 'if A is true then A is true'? are trivial tautologies not objectively true?

>>14776203
Don't bother with this retard. He will just reply "Prove the law of the excluded middle", without realizing that this question is a category mistake. He won't ever tell you what kind of "proof" he would accept. Because answering this question would reveal his foolishness.

>>14776174
>The only thing to be considered falsifiable in your posts was the claim about geometry which I addressed.
a. You also said that my definition of a priori was wrong, and you could falsify that with a simple reference supporting your claim, so that's at least two. And b. you didn't address anything about geometry. You simply exclaimed that yes, you can have three mutually exclusive axioms within a single consistent system. Well, maybe you were talking about paraconsistency and I'm the asshole for assuming otherwise. I don't really care either way. If you can't be bothered to support your claims, I'm not interested in them.

Regarding the "too stubborn" but, I wasn't implying anything about you. I simply listed that as an example of when I would do the same thing you're doing.
>>14776192
I have no problem accepting logical arguments. Can you make a logical argument that proves the existence of objective truth?

>>14776203
>>14776248
>what about 'if A is true then the negation of A is false'
Negating that gives you the Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov Interpretation, so that's actually a great example of something not being objectively true.

>>14776340
what about the statement 'this statement is objectively true'?

>>14776340
I was asking if that statement could be objectively true, not if there was some formalization thereof. Can you prove that 'if A is true then A is true' or 'this statement is true' are indeed wrong? I don't see how such statements could be subjectively decided without denying fundamental laws of logic and tautology. The truth value 'T' or simply 'true' of zero-order propositional logic IS objective truth.

>>14776364
What about the statement "this statement smells like lilacs"? They're both semantically equivalent to "this statement possesses an undefined modality."

>>14776380
>I was asking if that statement could be objectively true
Oh, absolutely. Any statement might be objectively true, I hope I didn't give you the impression that I deny the concept of objective truth. I just don't think a statement can be proven objectively true.

>>14776393
Well I guess it's not categorically impossible for proof of objective truth to exist. If every sentient being in the universe were telepathically linked (and/or if the solipsism hypothesis is true) then maybe proof of objective truth would be possible. I only think that it isn't possible in our universe as it currently exists.

>>14776405
was for
>>14776380

>>14774397
If you play electric sparks or static audio in a ionic gas will it ignite with the same shapes as is being played through a fourier unflattening of some sort? Also do alphabets shapes have a fourier effect to the letters sound? Fourier also is pure bronze age experimentalism there is no formal proof.

>>14776405
And I guess to be even more specific, I only think that it isn't possible in our universe as it currently exists, *assuming the solipsism hypothesis is false and that there exist at least two discrete consciousnesses in the universe.

>>14774397
Well true. Here we are, from nothing. Magic has happened. The rest is down to you as much as your environment. You close your eyes, you see nothing.

>>14774403
Gay, mega gay.

>>14774403
Learn triangulation. Uhh, yeah ok. Sounds like truth.... nooootttt.

>>14776192
where are these terms and conditions listed? only official sources please

>>14774397
>sorry /sci/entists, but there is nothing you can know for certain.
i know this post will get doubles

>>14777188
Based parapsychology anon objectively providing evidence of precognition.

>>14776340
All nonstandard flavors of logic are rooted in binary classical logic. You can make up some shitty logic without law of excluded middle, without modus ponens or with multiple truth values. But ultimately you will formalize it in set theory, category theory etc which themselves are based on binary classical logic. It's an inescapable a priori.

>>14777418
> Kleene-Priest logic of unknown

>>14777461
Yes, that's one of many examples included in what I said. Your point?

>>14777485
> you can make foundations not based on binary logic, using three valued logic

>>14777503
You can also make foundations based on poopoo peepee logic. But for some mysterious reason it doesn't give you any advantage over using binary logic.

>>14777524
except that three valued logic attempts to avoid paradoxical statements and issues regarding self referential logical sentences
> poopoo peepee logic
discarded

>>14777612
Paradoxes are a non-issue though. I have yet to see a paradox that cannot easily be resolved.

>>14774465
Proof vs Proven basically right?

>>14776248
You can't differentiate between imaginary axiom and objective truth? Buy yourself a new brain.

>>14776493
What the fuck are you on about? Take your meds