/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6686381
Who cares?

/lit/ is for pseudo intellectual teenagers.

>>6686399
I thought that was /mu/.

>>6686399
I thought that was /sci/

>>>/lit/5250007
>There are only finitely many prime numbers
rofl

that's this whole goddamn website

>>6686413
Yeah, for a board dedicated to literature I expect them to know of Euclid.
But he is not a "philosopher" so they don't talk about him in their social studi- I mean philosophy class.

>>6686417

Knowing and understanding are not the same.

>>6686419
Does it really make it better knowing they actually don't understand euclids mathematics?

>>6686426

Nope

>>6686399
>>6686405
its nearly one month before freshman year begins, and everyone here is posting on /sci/

>"how do i become smarter"
>"is it possible to do calculus/algebra/trigonometry/etc in two weeks"
>pop science garbage

>>6686381
hahahahaha that fucking dipshit who starts his posts with "⇒" actually comes from /lit/.

It explains so much.

>>6686472
>is it possible to do calculus/algebra/trigonometry/etc in two weeks?
>algebra/trigonometry
lol
But yeah it's evident that lots of high schoolers post here. Better than /lit/, they have middle schoolers.

>>6686501
>his

You must be new here.

>>6686534
>Implying "his" cannot be used as a possessive denoting a person of unspecified gender.

>>6686547
>implying it can

>>6686547
I didn't mean it that way. I just very quickly learned not to read any /sci/ post that starts with "⇒" in place of ">".

>that motherfucker who uses the equal-sign/arrow for greentexting
can we just exile him from 4chan already

>>6686556
You should read them. They are often very informative.

>>6686561
With tripfags, namefags and special snowflakes in general you can just ignore them.

Seriously, if you ignore them, they will go away.

>>6686553
>Implying there is a better option.

>>6686399
/lit/ is literally 100x better than this shithole, and I'm a math major.

>>6686562
kek

>>6686577
>I'm a math major
You sure are.

>>6686578
what does the matrix have to do with this thread?!

>>6686577

This post is garbage.

C/lit/ is full of pretentious wannabe intellectuals and you're justifying them by bragging on the internet about being a math major. You definitely sound like pretentious wannabe intellectual. At least this board has some form of decent opinions.

>>6686402
/mu/ is full of pretentious children.

>>6686582
Shut up faggot.

>>6686562
They are often wrong.

>>6686607
⇒At least this board has some form of decent opinions.
/sci/ is not supposed to have opinions. Science is about facts.

>>6686648
Show me one example. Protip: You can't.

>>6686650
some for of decent discussion then.
/lit/ on the other hand will call you out for not being apart of their elitist complex.

>>6686661
Outside of calculus homework threads you won't find any "decent discussion" on /sci/. Every other thread is either trolling or bragging.

>>6686650
>⇒
Stopped reading.
Is this some meme? Because It's just showing that the post is a shitpost and it's not worth reading.

>>6686650
>Show me one example.
There's one right here.
>Science is about facts.

Science is empirical. It involves scientific theories, scientific hypothesis, controlled experiments, and observations. Science is built on top of the Socratic Method. The idea is that we can't know anything with absolute certainty (eg. if I drop a ball I can't know with absolute certainty that it will not fly up to the ceiling), however if I form a hypothesis, run a lot of experiments, collect a lot of evidence, then I can propose a pretty good theory about what will happen. Later if I find some corner case (like if I were to drop the ball on another planet or in space) then I could repeat the process and propose an even better theory.

The idea that newtonian physics was fact until relativity was proposed is just retarded. It's this misconception that causes dipshits to constantly claim that the facts of science have been proven wrong before many times. Finding cases where an existing theory is insufficient and proposing a better theory is the only way science can progress.

>>6686671
Thanks for letting me know. I won't change my style.

>>6686677
⇒Science is built on top of the Socratic Method.
Are you baiting or do you have no fucking idea what the Socratic method is? The Socratic method is "pretending to be retarded" in order to annoy a conversational opponent. It's a very primitive rhetorical trick. Science doesn't need and doesn't want rhetorical trickery. Science wants facts. Science is objective and doesn't need to twist semantics in order to "win" debates.

⇒The idea is that we can't know anything with absolute certainty
We know a lot of things with absolute certainty. Not even philosophers believe this "u cannot know nuthin" bullcrap.

⇒if I drop a ball I can't know with absolute certainty that it will not fly up to the ceiling
Are you joking or retarded? Poe's law strikes once again.

⇒The idea that newtonian physics was fact until relativity was proposed is just retarded
Yeah, almost as retarded as this straw man I'm quoting right here.

>>6686671
He trolls /lit/ and /sci/.

>>6686698
*She

>>6686547
omg check ur privilege cis scum

>>6686696
That's exactly the point. Objectively while facts do exist we cannot know them with absolute certainty in the context of the physical world.
>Insert brain in a vat, man in a cave, matrix, etc.. analogy.
By making the scientific empirical it becomes immune to the socratic method.
To dumb this down in a way you might understand.
>Socratic Method: You can't know nuffin' with absolute certainty.
>Scientific Method: I don't need to.

Of course, when speaking about abstractions it is possible to know facts (in that context). This is why mathematics is not a science, is also immune to the Socratic Method, and talks about facts with absolute certainty.

>Poe's law strikes once again.
Parse the sentence again, it makes no indication about where you're dropping the ball or the definition/location of the ceiling.

>>6686718
⇒while facts do exist we cannot know them with absolute certainty in the context of the physical world
Of course we can and do know facts with absolute certainty. I'm sitting on a chair. That's a fact. My boyfriend is in the bed room. That's another fact. Everyone who isn't visually or verbally impaired can observe and confirm these facts.

⇒it makes no indication about where you're dropping the ball or the definition/location of the ceiling.
Cease your backpedaling. You were trying to be pseudo-intellectual by questioning gravity and you got called out for it.

science is a process of interpretation and fact generation. it is not, itself, fact

>>6686728
Nobody claimed the opposite, you silly straw man.

>>6686730

>>6686650
>Science is about facts.

>>6686734
"Science is about facts" is not the same as "Science itself is a fact". Why are you illiterate? Are you a non-STEM major? Science is based on factual observations. Its theories of course don't need to be facts, some of them could be falsified by new factual observations. Your stupidity is fascinating. Can you please tell us more about how you're struggling with basic tasks in your everyday life?

>>6686727
>Of course we can and do know facts with absolute certainty. I'm sitting on a chair. That's a fact. My boyfriend is in the bed room. That's another fact. Everyone who isn't visually or verbally impaired can observe and confirm these facts.
How do you know you aren't just a brain in a vat and none of those things have happened.

>Cease your backpedaling. You were trying to be pseudo-intellectual by questioning gravity and you got called out for it.
Holy fuck you are retarded. Let me dumb this down even further at the expense of being cartoony.
>Scientist 1: I propose a theory that If you drop a ball it will always fall to the ground. I have run a large number of controlled experiments and used statistical methods to show that this always happens.
>Scientist 2: I dropped a ball in a space station and it only floated around. I suspect that how far you are from the ground affects whether or not it falls towards it.
>Scientist 3: I dropped a ball underwater and it traveled upwards, I suspect that the medium in which the ball is dropped has an affect on which direction the ball travels towards.
>Scientist 4: I dropped a ball on the moon and it did not fall towards the ground on Earth but instead towards the ground on the Moon. It also fell slower than it would have on Earth.
>Each scientist proposes their own theory about which way a ball will fall. Over time as corner cases are found the theories are replaced by better ones. Conflicting theories are replaced by better theories that account for both phenomena. This is how science progresses.

This is cartoony, yes. However one could easily make the same analogy with newtonian gravity, relativistic gravity, and quantum gravity. Note how none are facts and all are theories (this is a good thing).

>>6686727
>I'm sitting on a chair. That's a fact.
That is what your senses are telling you, but there is no objective way to vet the veracity of your senses

>My boyfriend is in the bed room. That's another fact.
see above

>>6686752
This.

>>6686752
>>6686751
If you insist in going full retard and questioning the existence of reality itself, then you already lost. Get the fuck out of the science board and go be a "brain in a vet" somewhere else. You are neither interested in science nor in rational discourse, you want to wallow in underaged pseudo-intellectualism like a pig wallows in shit. Absolutely disgusting.

>>6686750
Hahahahah, this is hilarious.
>Why are you illiterate
He quoted exactly what you said, sorry mate.
>Are you a non-STEM major?
Like you were a STEM major, if you were you wouldn't shitpost so much
>Science is based on factual observations
>factual observations
Yeah, no point in reading further.
Observing from your previous posts which can be found on the archive, you aren't a troll, you are legitimately dumb.

Sorry.

>>6686764
>I have never taken an actual science course.
Spoken like a true sciencefan.

gb2/reddit

>>6686769
⇒He quoted exactly what you said
I pointed out the difference in the very post you're quoting. Ask a literate person to read and explain it to you.

⇒Like you were a STEM major
I'm working on my PhD thesis.

⇒your previous posts which can be found on the archive
I'm anonymous and the archive doesn't support a search for unicode characters. Go be upset somewhere else, please. We are trying to talk about science on this board, not about your hurt feelings.

>>6686764
>I have no understanding of the nature of subjectivity or its connection to science
>I trust my senses implicitly because I am incapable of critical thinking

>>6686773
It's impossible to be a scientist without being a science fan.

>>6686782
Subjectivity is incompatible with science. Science is objective. Cease your retard trolling. It won't get you anywhere.

>>6686773
Science doesn't concern itself with inane crap like "Are we brains in a vat?" or "What if solipsism?" Science rightfully and practically presumes the existence of reality, just like every functional human being does. If you're older than 6 and still considering solipsism as a serious possibility, then you are abnormal. Something went wrong in your psychosocial development. Please go see a doctor and stop shitting up /sci/.

>>6686791
>It's impossible to be a scientist without being a science fan.
It is impossible to be a politican without being righteous.

>>6686801
Can you please explain the dysfunctional and bizarre thought process that lead you to posting this absolutely inappropriate analogy? I mean this very seriously. Insight into your abnormality could potentially help medicine to gain a better understanding of neurological disorders in general.

>>6686809
No, sorry, I don't know much about astrology. Ask me anything about scatology, though.

>>6686764
>Sam Harris

how can anyone unironically quote sam harris's "philosophical" musings and take themselves seriously.

that is the dumbest shit i've read from a supposed intellectual.

>>6686839
Sam Harris is a brilliant scientist and a talented educator. You're just upset because he disproved free will.

>>6686857
sam harris detected, feck off jew

>>6686764
>Descartes is already lost and should gtfo science forever
Okay.

>>6686857
>brilliant scientist and talented educator
>also a bad philosopher
>gets called out by one of his buddies, Daniel Dennet, doctorate in philosophy and director of cognitive sciences at tufts

>The book is, thus, valuable as a compact and compelling expression of an opinion widely shared by eminent scientists these days. It is also valuable, as I will show, as a veritable museum of mistakes, none of them new and all of them seductive — alluring enough to lull the critical faculties of this host of brilliant thinkers who do not make a profession of thinking about free will. And, to be sure, these mistakes have also been made, sometimes for centuries, by philosophers themselves. But I think we have made so me progress in philosophy of late, and Harris and others need to do their homework if they want to engage with the best thought on the topic.

>>6686909
What was that, a petty summary with an attempt of questioning their intelligence? No refutations or anything?
Please.

Shows how retarded "philosophers" are

>>6686764
Tell us your major

>>6686945
Here you go.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/reflections-on-free-will

>>6686718
>mathematics ... talks about facts with absolute certainty
mathematics is build on consensus, it's an abstraction by itself, and can't talk about "facts", because it has nothing to do with reality

>>6686963
>Dan has been threatening to set me straight on this topic for several years now, and I have always encouraged him to do so, preferably in public and in writing.

haha. i guess this is an implicit admission that he had some things wrong

>>6686800
>Science rightfully and practically presumes the existence of reality
>presumes
that's key here, science presumes and doesn't ask further questions... that's why philosophy exists.
doesn't mean science is always completely right.

>>6686764
>Sam Harris
>Sam Harris, neuroscientist
>neuroscientist
>pseudoscientist
discarded

>>6686973
>Teh brain isnt reel u gais!

Neuroscienists are the ones who developed the pills you take to stop hearing voices, you should show more respect.

>>6686964
>mathematics is build on consensus, it's an abstraction by itself, and can't talk about "facts", because it has nothing to do with reality
lol'd hard, would lol again. A+++++++

>>6686800
You don't have to take the argument that far to show that only a dipshit would trust their senses implicitly. Just look at optical illusions and phenomena that we can't observe with our senses.

>>6686978
>Neuroscienists are the ones who developed the pills
that must have been biologists, not neuroscienists
also, unlike you, I don't take pills to not heat voices.

>>6686999
>I have never, ever taken a course on math in uni
what is this '1' symbol?

also
>a model is a fact
sure m8

>>6687018
>what is this '1' symbol?
An abstract concept that can be modeled in various axiomatic systems. Definitely not built on "consensus". Said axiomatic systems are modeled as interpretations of predicate or other logics. By constructing consistent sets and talking about entailment we formally define them as facts and we do so more rigorously than one can do for anything in science.

>>6687044
when you define something, you have to make sure someone else accepts your definition m8, otherwise you would simply have a mess.
hell, this is obvious from language itself, we have to teach our own definition of "apple" to our kids. well, mathematicians just follow what others already did. I could come with my own numerical system, but that would be useless.
and btw, the '1' symbol signifies 'unit'.

>we formally define them as facts
>we
which is just what I'm saying. I'm not sure how you are contradicting me...

>>6687067
>when you define something, you have to make sure someone else accepts your definition m8, otherwise you would simply have a mess.
No you don't. A definition only uses undefined terms, and other defined terms (recursive definition). It's entirely an abstraction. For a trivial example look at incidence geometry. The undefined terms are "point", "line", "incident", when we interpret those terms to mean something we are actually creating a model. In other words, the meaning that we give to those words doesn't have any inherent relation to incidence geometry, they don't even have to mean anything. This is why we have all sorts of interesting models of incidence geometry where you have stuff like
>"line" being interpreted as a point and "point" being interpreted as point
>"point" being interpreted as "line" while "line is interpreted as plane
>"line" is interpreted as circle in 3-space with a center at a point r, and "point" is interpreted as straight line crossing through r.
>etc...
Any fact about incidence geometry is true about incidence geometry no matter what model you use.

I think you misunderstood the sentence
>formally define them as facts
It's not that we say "this thing is a fact" and that's our definition. What we have is a logical system where things are true and false (fact or not). By defining mathematics as a model of said logical system then the math terms are defined as facts. (We're not defining the term "fact", we're defining the "statements" of mathematics as "sentences" of a given logic).

>>6686574
>what is gender-neutral "their" for 500 alex

>>6686909
⇒Dennett
⇒calling anyone out for bad philosophy

Toppest kek. He gets rekt pretty much every time he opens his mouth. He even rekt himself in his own book by failing to argue against the straw man he himself set up.

>>6686949
⇒Tell us your major

I don't have a "major". I'm neither american nor undergrad. I have two BSc degrees and an MSc degree. Currently I'm doing my doctorate.

>>6686969
The question of solipsism aka "Does reality really real?" is not a question worth discussing. It's a stupid thought every toddler had once and then dismissed because it is irrelevant. The question is inherently unanswerable and therefore meaningless. It has no practical implications whatsoever because we are naturally operating under the premise that reality exists. The only arguments for and against it are "u can't prove it" vs "u can't prove it wrong". Engaging in a discussion on such infantile nonsense is a futile act of pseudo-intellectualism and not socially acceptable outside of kindergarten.

>>6687925
How does someone with that much education not know a single thing about foundations of mathematics or the scientific method?

>>6687928
>The question is inherently unanswerable
Citation needed.

>>6688150
>Implying it could be answered.

>>6688142
I know everything about the scientific method. Most of my time on /sci/ or /lit/ I have to explain the scientific method to posters who failed to understand it. Read this ITT for example.

>>6688156
>either-or fallacy

>>6688163
You obviously don't understand even the basics of it. No wonder people ignore your shitposts with a non-latex material implication.

>>6688178
What's the matter? I explained the scientific method so many times to you and others. Why are you unwilling to learn?

>>6688172
>Implying there an alternative to being answerable or not.
Do not make me imply any further or you will regret it.

>>6688191
I ask you for something to back up that claim. I did not claim anything myself. "Prove me wrong" is not an answer.

>>6688195
>"Prove me wrong" is not an answer.

In philosophy it is. Most often it is literally the only argument a philosopher can use for his metaphysical claims.

>>6688195
This is why it is not worth it discussing this; it is not possible to prove or disprove if reality is really real and one can only be completely sure that one exists.

>>6688195
I did not ask you to prove me wrong. I just said that whether existence exists cannot be proven or disproven.

>>6686472
Srsly tho, is it possible?

>>6688209
I wanted you or someone else to back up a claim and you insulted me with greentext. You gave no reason why the question "Is solipisism true or false?" cannot be answered. Do you have a reason or is it just an unsubstiantiated opinion of yours?

>>6688276
*solipsism

>>6688197
god exists.

>>6688276
An average 4 or 5 year old could explain this. I'm not gonna do it and I refuse to believe that you were serious when asking this question. Can you please stop "trolling" this board? It's not funny, it's not entertaining and it's mildly annoying at best. Whilst you believe you're making us incredibly mad, the most emotional reaction you actually get is a tired "meh, it's this retard again".

>>6688285
Define God.
Then we'll talk.

>>6688290
I'm not trolling and if it's so easy to do, why can't you do it? Why bother replying at all if you're just evading answering the question?

>>6688296
Before I define anything, first you'll have to write a 30 page motivational essay on why you would like to discuss this topic.

>>6688307
Read the Sam Harris quote I posted ITT.

>>6688308
Nope.
Define God before I start to tip my fedora.

>>6686794
>Science pretends to be objective in a subjective reality
fixed that for ya

>>6688315
Please justify why that word needs a definition.

>>6688311
The one in "philosotards REKT by Sam Harris.jpg"? I don't see its pertinence. Please explain.

>>6686800
>If you're older than 6 and still considering solipsism as a serious possibility,
then you are thinking more sensibly than most scientists.

There is no way to prove an objective reality, and while presuming its existence is a useful fiction, it does not make it so.

>>6688320
Define "pertinence".

>>6688321
Good for you. Go drool in the corner while fantasizing that reality doesn't exist. In the meantime I'm enjoying life, being intellectual and successful.

>>6688322
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pertinence

>>6688315
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

>>6687044
>axioms
accepted as truth by... wait for it... consensus!

>>6687928
>inherently unanswerable
kek

looks like someone can't into philosophy because it's too hard for them to understand

>>6688296
The fundamental ground of being

That essence upon which all existence is predicated

et cetera

>>6688331
An average toddler understands it. I refuse to believe that you mentally operate on a lower level than a toddler. Please stop pretending to be retarded.

>>6688338
Something less abstract.

>>6688319
>hurr durr why do you need a definition of something to work with it
jesus fucking christ

>>6688342
It was a serious philosophical question. I have no reason to accept the convention of defining things. Please justify it.

>>6688325
>intellectual and successful
Between the two of us, it doesn't seem like I'm the one who has a problem with fantasizing about things

>>6688341
That's about as concrete a definition you can get for "god" or "the divine" without introducing a whole bunch of silly postulates like "we were created in His image" or "existence is the Godhead pretending to be everything and losing himself in his game of pretend"

>>6688345
Why so upset? Does it enrage you that nobody falls for your low quality bait?

>>6688340
>An average toddler understands it
which is why it is so surprising that you don't

you think the question of solipsism is inherently unanswerable, top kek m8

>>6688343
>I have no reason to accept the convention of defining things
So you don't know what any of those words you just typed mean?

>>6688349
If you don't see why it is unanswerable, then you must be braindead. Please stop pretending to be retarded. You are wasting your time.

>>6688348
>thinking I'm upset
I see you lead a very active fantasy life

>>6688351
Of course I do. Definitions are not needed to establish meaning. They are useless. If you disagree, please justify the convention of posting definitions.

>>6688355
Anon, you are desperately trying to save your face after your shitty bait failed. You are experiencing embarrassment even though you are an anonymous poster on an anonymous meme forum. Please reflect upon the course of events that led to this psychological abnormality of yours.

Sometimes I'm unable to willfully control my own actions and it appears as if I am only watching them take place or unfold, as in a dream or through a television screen. What's happening to me?

>>6688356
>the fundamental element of meaning is not needed to establish meaning
hooooooly shit you're retarded

>>6688363
Derealization? Go see a psychiatrist or a neurologist.

>>6688361
Most people would call this level of involvement in one's own fantasy "delusion"

I'm inclined to agree

>>6688363
Depersonalization / derealization

>>6688365
Definitions have nothing to do with meaning. They are an outdated formalism.

>>6688356
>Definitions are not needed to establish meaning.
They are when a word can have multiple meaning and no one is providing a concrete definition.

>>6688363
must be ebola

>>6688363
Medfag here. You have a brian tumor. You'll die in a month.

>>6688361
Narcissism is a hell of a pathology.

>>6688372
That's not what the word "meaning" means.

>>6688370
>Definitions have nothing to do with meaning
jesus fucking christ you're a fucking moron

>>6688368
Indeed. The poster I replied to is clearly delusional.

>>6688381
posts like this really make me wish I had some way to punch people directly in the face over the internet

>>6688381
Yes, words can have multiple meanings. Especially in philosophy and especially because there is no definite context for the word.

>>6688378
Narcissism is the natural attitude of an Übermensch.

>>6688386
Wow.

If we hadn't already established the fact that you're delusional, I'd guess that you were about 5 years old.

>>6688383
Show me the physical process by which a definition generates meaning.

>>6688388
Do you always get angry when you read an objectively true post?

>>6688389
If there is no definite context, then a definition won't help us. Checkmate, defeated with your own words.

>>6688396
No, but I get angry when I read outright trolling

i.e. your posts

>>6688393
That's a very interesting conjecture. I'm sure Cleverbot would love to discuss it with you.

>>6688394
>trying to debunk abstractions by pointing out their lack of physical reality
holy motherfucking shitballs, you are fucking duuuuuuuuuuuumb

>>6688402
What's the matter? Can't debate someone who isn't a troll? Like me?

>>6688396
>I can promote whatever I want as objective and truthful and nobody can stop me!
0/10
>>6688400
The definition expresses the type of "god" we are talking about, thus defining the context.

>>6688408
Stop.

You are a troll. You're trolling.

Please go away.

>>6688406
So you admit that definitions have no physical reality? Then why should we accept them as a concept?

>>6688396
>objectively true
Someone has a very weak grasp of what "objectively true" means

Which honestly makes sense in the case of a person who denies that definitions have anything to do with meaning

Btw guys, the Krebs cycle has nothing to do with citric acid and logarithms have nothing to do with exponents

>>6688410
I'm confused. Didn't you want a definition of a word? And now you're asking for a definition of a context? Words and context are complementary and not synonymous. Are you sure you know how to define "definition" in this context?

>>6688415
>trying to claim that abstractions shouldn't be accepted because they are abstract
>while arguing for the existence of meaning
you may actually be the dumbest person on /sci/

>>6688414
Philosophy isn't trolling. Is it too hard for you to entertain an abstract idea?

>>6688426
>argues that things with no physical reality should not be accepted as a concept
>chides others for not entertaining things with no physical reality
Trolling. QED.

>>6688417
Get a load of this guy. He uses big scary words like "logarithm". I don't know and I don't care what a logarithm is. Prove me wrong instead of posting straw mans.

>>6688415
>Implying something that is not physical cannot be accepted as a concept in philosophy.
You are probably trolling but I do not even care anymore.
A definition is a way to expressly state what is meant by a word. Should the meaning of the word be understood unambiguously, the debate can proceed, but otherwise, if a debatant requests to be given the definition of a word to clarify its meaning (usually ambiguous to the person requesting the definition), it must be stated to proceed with the debate.
>>6688422
No, aether is dumber. No one is dumber than aether.

>>6688422
If definitions are abstractions, then they are optional and not mandatory. If meaning can be found on lower layers of abstraction, then why use definitions?

>>6688429
Philosophy is very abstract. Perhaps when you grow up, you'll learn to understand it.

>>6688434
>it must be stated

This is an ethical claim. How did you derive an OUGHT from an IS? Sounds like sophistry to me.

>>6688442
le epik trole :^)

>>6688439
By your own arguments, if meaning is found in any layer of abstraction at all, it should not be accepted as a concept because it has no physical reality.

So it's kind of completely obvious that you're trolling.

>>6688447
You cannot use my argument to prove me wrong because it is my argument which you want to prove wrong. Learn to logic. Circular logic is invalid.

>>6688433
I don't have to prove you wrong; you did that yourself by saying that definitions have nothing to do with meaning. That's patently untrue, just as much so as saying that pi has no connection whatsoever to circles

>>6688449
I am pointing out gaping logical inconsistencies in your argument.

This is in no way circular and is a perfectly valid method of debunking an argument.

It's like you've never actually taken a philosophy class.

>>6688450
You can have meaning without definitions. Definitions are optional and not mandatory. Your argument is invalid.

>>6688442
Kek'd.
>>6688444
>ethical claim
lol no. How do you expect the debate to continue if the other party do not know what we are talking about? I state why a definition ought to be given when requested therein. Perhaps you should read
>Should the meaning of the word be understood unambiguously, the debate can proceed, but otherwise, if a debatant requests to be given the definition of a word to clarify its meaning (usually ambiguous to the person requesting the definition), it must be stated to proceed with the debate.

>>6688452
Philosophy classes are indoctrination. I prefer to be a free thinker. Did Socrates ever take philosophy classes? No, and if he did he wouldn't have been the wise man he was.

>>6688454
Why _should_ a debate follow your rules and not my rules or anyone's rules or any rules at all? Who are yout to have authority over how a debate _ought_ to be conducted?

>>6688453
To say that "definitions have nothing to do with meaning" (your exact words) is completely false.

This cannot be denied.

>>6688452
One does not need to take a philosophy class. Philosophical concepts are often things anyone with a modicum of critical thought and knowledge of basic logic can understand, or not understand, should they be trolling.

>>6688455
Okay there, Mr. Free Thinker, I have to inform you that your argument collapses under its own logical inconsistencies and you are a fucking idiot.

>>6688458
Can you prove that? You don't win by saying "your wrong". Do you have arguments?

>>6688463
Please show me where I stated that philosophy classes are mandatory.

>>6688464
How would you even recognize a logical inconsistency when you can't even justify the necessity of definitions?

>>6688467
I can only show it to you if you accept that reality exists. Otherwise you could just deny whatever evidence I'll show you. Do you accept that reality exists?

>>6688329
but that's wrong you fucking retard
axioms aren't "accepted as true", one assumes that they are true in order to proceed with deductions
3/10

>>6688465
>you're*
Okay, you're not even trying to pretend you're not trolling at this point. A fucking first-grader could point out why "definitions have nothing to do with meaning" is an incorrect statement.

But here you go: Definitions are used to establish and clarify meaning. Whether they are the only means of doing so or even a good means of doing so is immaterial. The fact is, saying "definitions have nothing to do with meaning" is pants-on-fucking-head retarded.

It's like saying "fire has nothing to do with a chemical change." False! Obviously and irredeemably false. Critical thought isn't even necessary to understand this.

>>6688468
"Definitions have no physical reality so they should not be accepted as a concept"
"By the way let's accept meaning as a concept even though it has no physical reality"

Found one

>>6688465
1. You do not have any arguments either. Note that this states that you are not right, not that you are wrong or that the person holding an antithetical argument is right.
2. Definitions are primary to meaning in certain cases. For example, children often need to be given a basic definition for words that they have never heard of; this is not the best example, however. A better example would be that when a word could be used differently, and in modern times, God can be quite a broad concept.

>>6688473
If a first grader can prove it, then why can't you? Are you less educated than a first grader? You didn't prove anything in your post. You only repeated your assertion and made a few more invalid analogies. I didn't ask you to tell me how definitions are used, I asked why they are needed. Language, motherfucker, do you speak it?

>>6688472
>they aren't accepted as true, they're accepted as true
wow.

you're dumb.

>>6688475
And where's the logic? Can you write this down with axioms and quantifiers and other cool symbols? I don't see the logical connection.

>>6688476
Examples are not a proof. Learn logic.

>>6688477
I don't give a fuck about your stupid troll game where you try to wind people up by saying definitions are not necessary. I am pointing out that you are a LITERAL FUCKING RETARD for saying "definitions have nothing to do with meaning."

Fuck you, I'm done with this. Troll your heart out, faggot.

>>6688478
>Sttrwarwar meennn!111
They are not always *accepted* as true; they are *assumed* to be true in order to proceed to the next line of deduction, like when you discuss anime or something like that. It is not real but can still be talked about. You don't just say "but this isn't real, it's fucking bullshit die bullshitter".

>>6688481
>being intentionally moronic in order to troll
Bold strategy, Cotton, let's see how it works out for him

>>6688478
>assumed = accepted
fucking kek

>>6688486
>they are not always accepted as true, they are accepted as true
dude, seriously.

you're dumb.

>>6688485
Your inability to understand abstract philosophy doesn't make me a "troll". I'll take it, you're very young and your world views aren't fully developed yet.

>>6688490
bad troll
You're not even trying anymore, are you?

>>6688490
see
>>6688488

>>6688487
It was a serious question. He mentioned logic. I don't see the logic in his post.

>>6688491
Okay, troll

>>6688495
>>6688488
>pretending that assumption doesn't require acceptance of the assumption as true
jeeeeeesus christ you're fucking retarded

>>6688496
>I don't see the logic in simple statements
>I cannot figure logic out without breaking it down into formalism
>yet I deny the utility of definitions because they are just formalism
just wow man

>>6688508
acceptance by the person making the assumption, not, as you implied, the consensus of mathematicians

>>6688510
Do you admit not knowing anything about logic?

>>6688518
You first

>>6688512
>multiple people agreeing to accept something as true
>not consensus
summer 4chan is really depressing sometimes

>>6688522
>a single person making an assumption for his deductions
>consensus
fuck off, retard

>>6688522
>A single person assuiming something as true is a consenus among a multitude.
1/10

>>6688521
I'll take that as a "yes".

>This thread.
All hail the Internet.

>>6688524
>only one person alive does math
wow you're retarded

>>6688532
>doesn't know what logic is
>reinterprets reality in a delusional, self-serving manner
I don't mean to alarm you but you may have literal brain damage

>>6688527
>only one person alive does math
wow you're retarded

>>6688612
>We're talking about math.
Wow, you're retarded.
>>6688616
I wonder what nonliteral brain damage is.

>>6688622
see >>6686964

yes, we are talking about math. learn to read threads

>>6688622
>I wonder what nonliteral brain damage is
>doesn't understand the concept of figurative language
Are you autistic?

>>6688631
Yes.

>>6688638
Very often, people say things that are not to be taken literally. "Literal brain damage" indicates that the poster means actual brain damage as opposed to the more commonly understood meaning behind "you have brain damage" here at 4chan, which is "you are stupid".

>>6688628
>Math is about math.
Get rekt, biatch.

>>6688651
I was only pretending to be autistic.

>>6688657
You're not me. Don't post for me, feg.

>>6688657
That's cool, I was only pretending to be a human being

>>6688667
Do not, for it is ludicrous; we all know you are a dog.

>>6688667
Are you an alien? ayy lmao

>>6688677

>⇒>8 hours, 3 pages

>What the fuck is wrong with you? I read math books with the same speed as novels.

ayy

>>6688827

The most retarded shit I've ever read.

>>6688869
Why are you quoting my post from the /lit/ thread?

>>6688869
Contain your evny.

>>6688873
>evny
shitty trolling/10

>>6688878
lel

>>6688873

bait/10

>>6688881
>someone not being mathematically retarded
>must be bait

Interesting reasoning, anon. Tell us more.

>>6688888

No can do. Quints says it all. I'm retarded.

>>6688888
>"Contain your evny."
>not bait
gr8 b8 m8 let's masterb8

>>6688888
>>6688888


nooice.

Me here, >>6687044


>>6688472
>>6688329
You're both wrong. The guy who said you "assume" axioms is actually closer to the right answer but formally incorrect. The dipshit who uses "⇒" is so wrong that their University would be ashamed.

Read these lecture notes for a basic understanding of logic.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/t20/notes/logic.pdf

What you do is make a set of sentences, in predicate logic. Call it gamma. Then you prove that gamma is consistent. There are a number of ways to do this. An easy way is by using the Tableau method. If gamma is consistent then that means that there exists a map or "interpretation" where all of the sentences in gamma are true. In this case you can formally assign an interpretation to your predicates, sentences, and so on and you can use several different derivation methods to find more sentences within that predicate logic that are entailed by gamma. In this case we call the sentences in gamma, "axioms", we interpret our predicates using "undefined terms" (the interpretation isn't inherent to the logic), then we can formally define new terms using the others and we can use entailment and derivation methods as theorems and proofs. A logic with these four properties is called an axiomatic system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_%28logic%29
>In analogy to natural language, where a noun phrase refers to an object and a whole sentence refers to a fact, in mathematical logic, a term denotes a mathematical object and a formula denotes a mathematical fact. In particular, terms appear as components of a formula.

What the fuck was happening in this thread?

So this is the 'smart' board of 4chan?

>>6689601
well, at least they like to think they are

>>6689601
You can make any board 'smart' or 'dumb' since you're part of it. Especially if you're a mod or moot.

>>6689305
Doesn't Gödels second incompleteness theorem assert that if <span class="math">\Gamma[/spoiler] is sufficiently powerful, it can't prove its own consistency (i.e. if it can, it's actually inconsistent)?
How does this relate to your "prove <span class="math">\Gamma[/spoiler]'s consistency" part?

>>6686426
>>6686417
>>6686501
What kind of turbofag can't grasp euclidean geometry

>>6686696
No, he's right. Modern science, history and medicine all trace their roots Socrates. Hippocrates and Thucydides were both heavily influenced by his teachings

>We know a lot of things with absolute certainty. Not even philosophers believe this "u cannot know nuthin" bullcrap.
Science operates through disproofs, not proofs. Only math has proofs. We assume the most parsimonious hypothesis, which we arrive at through eliminative induction

Read some Bacon, /lit/fag

>>The idea that newtonian physics was fact until relativity was proposed is just retarded
The idea that newtonian physics was **regarded as** fact until relativity was proposed is just retarded

ftfy. Again, science is a set of assumptions build on evidence. We DISprove, or falsify incorrect hypotheses

>>6688142
He never said WHAT his degrees were in.

>>6692085
Who is "he"?

>>6687924
you get rekted every time you post anywhere

>>6690097
Some philosopher said that something was not proven until it has passed the trial of reality.

>>6689601
>unread, practically illiterate in every other subject except high school calculus


yea nah. some of these people have never finished their gen. ed classes which tells me that they are either freshman faggots or that there is something else more fundamentally wrong with their brain.

>>6693631
nope

>>6693643

>yea nah. some...

Speaking of not finishing general education classes...