/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5625345
>argue everything with me and i'll prove you wrong
You can not.
I could start an argument where I know that I am correct.

For example, I put it to you that the Earth is not flat.
If you wish to argue, you must take the side that the Earth is flat.

>>5625351
he may say that it is cubic.

>>5625351
You're making a statement: The earth is not flat.
How do you know it?
Have you measured it yourself?
No, you take the word of others.
You cannot prove it yourself.

Thus your statement is false.

>>5625356
Not being able to prove something myself would not automatically mean that it is false.
That is a logical fallacy.

In fact I can prove it myself; I could travel around the Earth and get back to the same spot.
I just do not have the time to, nor the means to.

>>5625345
can you explain to me why an inverse moment of a distribution would be more useful than a normal moment?

>>5625356
Wow. That was the most moronic thing I've read today. Real southern-USA-reclusive-baptist-church-denying-evolution - tier stupid. Enough of internet for me today.

>>5625351
The fact that you are correct doesn't mean that he can't prove you wrong.

Logical FAIL

>>5625370
Yes it does.

>>5625370
He may come up with a truer statement.

>>5625373
No. Who said proofs can't be wrong?
He can:
1.- Provide a wrong proof.
2.- Show you that the proof in which you based your correctness was wrong.

No matter how much you check, any proof can be wrong. You can only TRUST that the proof is logical. And trusting something doesn't make it truer.

>>5625377
A statement is true, or the statement is false.
It is black and white.
There is no 'truer', unless we are estimating.

>>5625359
No it doesn't make it false by default but also doesn't prove it.
You stated something and couldn't prove it, in that sense you're false, the earth might or might not be flat, that is irrelevant.

Another thing, you said if you travel around the world you'd be able to prove it, but that doesn't prove anything because you only said "the earth is not flat", the earth could be flat like a plate(bottom/top) and i could just walk the plate-earth and get in the place where i started without noticing anything.

>>5625384
Oh, little detail on 2. : You can actually be correct, and the proof in which you base your trust of being correct be wrong, but just the proof.

>>5625386
Completely wrong. A statement can be paradoxical, and undecided. Just use 'true' instead of truer, or abide to the following: "Trusting something doesn't make it true"

>>5625384
That picture is retarded. Is this a real exam question in murrica?

>>5625386
>lel i can't into science.
Science is a system of evolving knowledge. It is always renewing itself to create more accurate knowledge, but you may never know the real truth of anything. You may only perceive what your body allows you to perceive.
>muh machines
What if the machine is showing you something your brain can't interpret?

I've demonstrated you are an ignorant pseudointellectual hipster. This kind of shit will not be tolerated in /sci/. These boards may suit you better: >>>/pol/ >>>/b/ >>>/r9k/ >>>/lgbt/

>>5625397
I don't really know. I think we humans are stupid all around the world and in the ISS.

>>5625404
Science doesn't deal with knowledge, because for knowledge to exist (at least, in the classical sense) it has to deal with truth. There are lots of papers published in journals that merely see a correlation between evidences.
That's as much as you can do with logic and science: correlate measurements.

IF you are illogical, then, you can think you do more, like knowing more, predicting stuff, discovering the universe and so on. But only by being illogical

>>5625386
>can't into fuzzy or multivalued logic

>>5625392
>You stated something and couldn't prove it, in that sense you're false,
Intuitionist logic is 3edgy5me. Why are you too insecure to accept "tertium non datur" as an axiom?

>the earth could be flat like a plate(bottom/top)
No, it can't. Gauss empirically proved that the geodesics are not straight lines. The earth's curvature must be non-zero.

>>5625419
Uh, i don't think knowledge is the same as truth. You may be taught some bullshit at school and you may believe in it. You have acquired knowledge, false knowledge. To prove that the knowledge you acquired was true or false you must use the scientific method.

Could I teach myself calculus if I already know geometry/trig/algebra 2? More specifically using the book in the pic (I have the same book on my desk beside me)

>>5625429
I didn't say knowledge is the same as truth. I said that knowledge needs truth.
Two links I think you'd consider (at least) fun to check out, very basic ones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge#Theories_of_knowledge

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science#Philosophical_critiques

>>5625419
>Science doesn't deal with knowledge
comedy gold

>>5625438
>Could I teach myself calculus if I already know geometry/trig/algebra 2?
Yes.

>More specifically using the book in the pic
Why don't you read it and see for yourself instead of wasting time on 4chan?

>>5625447
>Feyerabend
>epistemological anarchism

>>>/lit/

OP - tell me, are all selfless acts caused by a psychological underlying selfish motivation? A motivation to increase one's emotional feelings. Or, are humans truly capable of genuine selflessness. My opinion ( the right one ) evolutionary speaking, we as humans are not capable of true selflessness.

>>5625424
>>5625424
It was a 'debate', he tried to prove that the earth isn't flat and i merely showed that he couldn't prove it, at least so far, i didn't deny anything else on that part.

>No, it can't.
Doesn't matter what Goose said, my antagonist used the word "flat", if later he tried to use the geodude proof(i wouldn't wanna sound 99edy9^99u by discrediting the "arbitrary nature of math in relation to reality", maybe later) i would simply say to him that:
He could be making circles on the flat earth thinking he was going "around" the earth.

Unless he could prove that he was indeed going around the earth ,his reasoning would be inefficient in proving his case.
If he could top it again i'd present another counter argument.

>>5625468
>It was a 'debate'
Why the quotation marks?

>he tried to prove that the earth isn't flat and i merely showed that he couldn't prove it, at least so far
She could, if her education didn't stop in middle school.

>Doesn't matter what Goose said
Of course it matters because it proves you wrong.

>He could be making circles on the flat earth thinking he was going "around" the earth.
Circles are not geodesics in a flat metric.

>>5625450
>green text

If that is about literature, then everything that isn't measurable (that would be just numbers), is out of this board. That subject is as proper to this board as 'matter is made of atoms' is proper to this board.

>>5625345
OP,
'Conscious' is beyond our reason, it is a matter of saying you or I are apart of all things and are thus subject to them- at which point one would except that and cease being 'conscious'

If you don't provide a counter argument in 1 Hour I will attempt to refute myself.

Also, [flaming insult on your sexuality here]

>>5625491
>That subject is as proper to this board as 'matter is made of atoms' is proper to this board.

"U cannot know nuthin" is not an appropriate statement on a science board. It isn't our fault that you have to resort to such edgy denial of all empirical knowledge because you failed to understand scientific contents.

>>5625467
Not a debate.

But since it's a topic that bugged me when i was tryhard edgy teen i'll bite.

First, "selfishness" is a stupidly arbitrary word, like most of em anyway, i don't wanna disappoint by the cliche "you're asking the wrong questions" because you do.
You must stop thinking in those terms, the best and clearer way to identify any kind of pattern in human psyche is to view them in a thermodynamic way.

I'll put it as casually as i can:
All acts, everything you do is caused by your brain.

1)If you do x that benefits you and everyone around you= you are regarded as a good person
2)If you do x that benefits only you and no one else= you are regarded as a normal person
3)If you do x that benefits only you but affects negatively somehow the others = you are considered as a bad person.


Needless to say, the intuitive and intracultural way of profiling a person as "evil" "good" "indifferent" is based on his level of "selfishness".
A mass murderer dictator is helping himself feel strong/carrying out his beliefs, so he thinks he's righteous, but he affects most people negatively, so he is regarded as evil by most people.
A person who does excess good to his community does it to gain the favor, thus securing himself, he might even do it subconsciously, doesn't matter.

True selflessness is not only unrealistic but it just wouldn't make any sense in any way, not intuitively nor physically since it implies a reaction without an action, an action without a source of any kind of energy.

>>5625517
>when i was tryhard edgy teen

That would be the 20th of march, 2013.

>>5625527
>being this mad on the internet

>>5625515
It is an appropiate statement, because science is not about knowing. I don't have to resort to anything edgy, and I assume you know it. Descartes, the same guy that said that 'edgy' thing (in your view), made contributions to science, so it's not impossible at all to do both things.

I agree to empirical knowledge, mostly. There are relations between measurements pictured by equations. Great! Neat! No problem with that. But don't jump into conclusions. Don't be irrational

How do I genetically engineer my son to be anthropomorphic?

>>5625540
Meth

>>5625506
At which point one would expect* and cease being conscious?

You're not really providing any argument here so i could counter-argue.
>part of all things

Try being more coherent, i mean its fun all this jazz but give me something tangible to shit on.

>>5625540
did you impregnate a chicken?
Welp, try making an omelette.

I have trouble the Primer Walking sequencing method, anybody here can give me some help?
I get that you can't sequence the 2-7kb segment you get when you amplify the gap. When you try to sequence that long fragment you get the first primer, but when you perform a PCR you're supposed to use two primers. How do you get the next primer you're going to use?

>>5625565
>I have trouble understanding*
fixed that for me

>>5625554
It is the literal of the 0.0.1*
Do you agree with the statement? If not why?

>>5625565
try signifying the gamma desolators through inverse prosthetic pre-adjustment.

>>5625581
oh, so /sci/ is as shitpost-friendly as the rest of 4chan
what's new

>>5625581

>>5625581
You just need 1.21 Gigawatts

>>5625506
>except<, by that definition, being unconscious is to say you or I are apart of no things and subject to none of them- other than what is preempting your unconsciousness.

Cummon OP I even gave you a clue in the guise of a typo- Rule ! existential of debating: Confine definitions, the way it was intended is always the way it should be received, what was said has the answer in itself~ !

>>5625506
>conscious
Do you have any evidence for that magical soul?

>>5625581
Bepzinky

>>5625363
Haha exactly, this Mutemattics fellow just got out of intro to philosophy class.

There's some axioms of geography we hold to be true. The earth can be traveled all over, and no definite change in shape would be found. Make it a sphere, oval, ect.

>>5627371

could it be doughnut shaped?

>>5627396
No, that's incompatible with the gravitational field being approximately constant on earth's surface.

>>5626732

I do. I keep in the heel of my shoe.