/sci/ - Science & Math

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781106]

[Anonymous No.2781109]

[Anonymous No.2781116]

>Imokwiththis.jpg

Not as if the Constitution matters. Just like the Bible, the people in charge make shit up to please themselves.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781129]

>Not as if the Constitution matters

retarded eurotroll detected

[Anonymous No.2781137]

>American pragmaticfag detected

OH, you think it matters.

That's... awkward.

[Anonymous No.2781141]

>>2781129

Hey, how's that fourth amendment working out for you guys?

[Scientist No.2781143]

>>2781106
Yeah, and? This is one of the most blatant argument by metaphors I've ever seen. "Because these two things share one property X, and thing one has property Y (it being bullshit), thus thing two has property Y."

Not even trying anymore are you, trolls?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781149]

>>2781143
>argument by metaphor
you mean argument by analogy, and, heh, you've totally misinterpreted what i am arguing

[Scientist No.2781157]

>>2781149
"Analogy vs metaphor" - Whatever.

What is the point which you're trying to make?

[Anonymous No.2781164]

>>2781149
I don't think that most people who think the Bible is full of shit do so because it must be interpreted. It probably has to do with it forming the basis for one of the nastiest streaks in the denial of theories supported by empirical evidence ever.

>>2781141
Precisely my point, informed-furner. Good to have you here.

[Anonymous No.2781167]

I've never heard anybody say the bible was full of shit because it needs interpreting.

The Bible is full of shit because it is a sack and somebody put shit in that sack.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781182]

>>2781157
>"Analogy vs metaphor" - Whatever.
No, not "whatever". An analogy is an inference made on the basis of similarit(ies) between some specified objects.

A metaphor is a literary figure of speech.

Argument by analogy = You are like a rose in a, b, c respects, therefore it is highly probably you have d

Argument by Metaphor = You are a rose.

There's a huge difference.


>>2781157
My point is that people dismiss some texts and ways of life because they require proper interpreting more than others (see religion vs science)

[Anonymous No.2781192]

>>2781182
>implying there's a proper way to interpret the Bible

gtfo of here.

[Anonymous No.2781202]

>>2781182
I'll bite.

It is bullshit that either the bible or the constitution require "interpretation" by people more powerful than us.

Now that most adults can read the people in power have to find new ways to control us. One way is to say that even though you can read they are needed to interpret what we really read.

Before you couldn't even read the bible, much less interpret it. You just took it up the ass.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781212]

>>2781192
Some forms of interpretation are more valid than others

[Anonymous No.2781218]

>>2781212

How about this one:

"It's a collection of scrolls written by largely illiterate desert people."

[Anonymous No.2781219]

>>2781182
You don't have to interpret science. Somebody publishes something and if you need to prove it you just set up an experiment and get the result yourself.

And even if you can't set up your own large hadron collider at least math is a language specifically designed to need as little interpretation as possible while still being efficient.

[Anonymous No.2781220]

>>2781212
Well, I suppose interpreting it to be the writings of intoxicated, addle-brained followers of an apocalyptic cult IS better than interpreting is as an actual historical account.

[Scientist No.2781221]

>>2781182
>My point is that people dismiss some texts and ways of life because they require proper interpreting more than others (see religion vs science)
They're entirely different kinds of documents. Your argument is invalid.

The constitution does not attempt to proclaim facts about the observable world. It merely imparts instructions and value judgments.

The bible does proclaim facts about the observable world. Moreover, demonstrably false facts. Quite silly false facts even. Thus, it should be recognized as the rather useless book of history that it is. It's about as useful to my modern life (barring interacting with christians) as is Yertle The Turtle. Well, except I could read Yertle The Turtle to my children if I ever get any without committing child abuse.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781225]

>Now that most adults can read the people in power have to find new ways to control us.
see: science

>. One way is to say that even though you can read they are needed to interpret what we really read.
It's called being an 'authority'. Those of us who have PhDs recognise the importance of authority where it's properly due.

[Anonymous No.2781228]

>>2781225
MMM, I like it, you're not even trying to pretend that you're not an elitist.

[Anonymous No.2781229]

>>2781218

>writing scrolls
>illiterate

Pick one.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781239]

>>2781219
>Somebody publishes something and if you need to prove it you just set up an experiment and get the result yourself.
The only way you knew you needed to prove anything was through being able to properly interpret it. try again

>>2781221
>e bible does proclaim facts about the observable world. Moreover, demonstrably false facts. Quite silly false facts even
You're simply denying my basic premise that the bible needs proper interpreting with this, and worse still, you're not even giving any reasons

[Anonymous No.2781242]

>>2781229

>largely

Those adverbs can be tricky, eh.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781244]

>>2781228
I'm not sure what you mean? Do people on /sci/ think an elitist is someone who recognises that not all people are equal?

[Scientist No.2781248]

>>2781239
>You're simply denying my basic premise that the bible needs proper interpreting with this, and worse still, you're not even giving any reasons
Proper interpreting my ass. Genesis is not literal. The false account of the birth of jesus is not literal. Exactly what in that stupid book of yours is actionable? The stoning to death disobedient children part? Selling your daughter into slavery part? No really, come at me.

[Anonymous No.2781247]

>>2781225
The process of science cannot be a way to control people because the results are made available to all.

You'd have a point if you couldn't just read hundreds of thousands of papers detailing people's research.

That is the exact opposite of some guy in robes telling everybody what the bible says while making it impossible for them to learn how to read.

You mad because you can' t understand science? That is your fault.

[Anonymous No.2781265]

>>2781239
You could say that in order to understand 2+2 I need to be able to properly interpret it.

That is a lot different than trying to interpret why Samson killed 4 thousand men with the jawbone of a donkey (which I want to see made into a major Hollywood film).

[Anonymous No.2781274]

>>2781265

The why is obvious. If you could kill four thousand men with a jawbone, don't expect me to believe that you wouldn't.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781284]

>>2781247
>The process of science cannot be a way to control people because the results are made available to all.
No, they're not. Military research is carried out on the very basis of it not being available to everyone, you know, so you can get the upper hand??? lol stupid

>You'd have a point if you couldn't just read hundreds of thousands of papers detailing people's research.
You can't do that any easier than you can on the bible. Getting access to those papers requires a subscription to academic search databases.

>That is the exact opposite of some guy in robes telling everybody what the bible says while making it impossible for them to learn how to read.
straw man argument, we're not in the 1300's

>You mad because you can' t understand science?
You mad because you can't understand religion?
You're fault heh.

>>2781248
>Genesis is not literal. The false account of the birth of jesus is not literal.
Baby steps kid, I'd like you to tell me how that affects my statement that the bible requires proper interpretation now.

>Exactly what in that stupid book of yours is actionable? The stoning to death disobedient children part? Selling your daughter into slavery part?
All of these acts require a correct grasp of historical horizon, use of literary devices and clear grasp of authorial intent. You wouldn't understand one tenth of Ulysses or a book on dynamical systems if you didn't understand how to properly approach the text or understand the correct vocabulary and language-use and language-rules for each.

[Anonymous No.2781289]

>>2781274
Well, Samson was an asshole, but the whole book of Judges is full of fucked up bullshit like that and through "interpretation" I wonder what the hell a modern day person is supposed to learn from it.

I'm surprised they taught me about Samson in Sunday school after looking at it again as an adult. This motherfucker was a bad ass who killed thousands of men in melee combat and slept with prostitutes. Why were they teaching me about him in some sanitized manner at age 8?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781292]

>>2781265
>That is a lot different than trying to interpret why Samson killed 4 thousand men with the jawbone of a donkey
No it's not. One simply has to understand the rules of the language-game employed in mathematics.

[Anonymous No.2781294]

>both written by man.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781298]

>>2781292
*and those of religion. The only difference is that you fail to grasp religion's language-game rules as easily due to varying circumstances. But don't blame your failure on the book.

[Anonymous No.2781301]

>>2781284
Ah son, you really are just trolling. Bye.

[Anonymous No.2781310]

>>2781298
There are no rules and if you are pretending/believing that you comprehend said rules then you are pretty pathetic.

[Scientist No.2781306]

>>2781298
I'm waiting for your particular reading, so that I can either call you harmless or dangerous.

Exactly how do you read any of the history? As literal? Exactly how do you read any of the moral commandments in the text? As commandments which carry weight in the real world which you ought to follow? Or just a fun story?

[Anonymous No.2781314]

>>2781292

I love the way you use ill defined terms rather than concrete, testable assertions. But I guess /lit/ is a veritable proving ground for trolls.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781333]

>>2781301
pic chronically related

>>2781306
>I'm waiting for your particular reading, so that I can either call you harmless or dangerous.
I'm not arguing for a certain reading of the bible, simply that it requires interpretation, like the constitution. They're completely different claims. Please address my claim and not the one you are trying to force on me.

>>2781310
>There are no rules and if you are pretending/believing that you comprehend said rules then you are pretty pathetic.
Of course there are, just like there are rules in the language we are using right now to convey meaningful sentences, or the rules involved in poetry or scientific discourse.

>>2781314
You should be familiar with them if you've read any Wittgenstein. I assume everyone on this board has had third level (but not community college) education.

[Anonymous No.2781336]

>>2781284
Or, you know, you can go to any university library which will let you in for free to read the journals.

[Anonymous No.2781343]

>>2781333

Wittgenstein didn't understand mathematics. Reading his works is almost as painful as Derrida's.

[Anonymous No.2781349]

>>2781333
Your rules may be different than mine.

In science if you come up with the wrong set of rules you will be unproductive and your experiments will fail, independent of what other people think.

In religion if you apply the "wrong" set of rules you just end up creating a new denomination and thousands of people will follow you anyway.

[Scientist No.2781353]

>>2781333
>I'm not arguing for a certain reading of the bible, simply that it requires interpretation, like the constitution. They're completely different claims. Please address my claim and not the one you are trying to force on me.
You're not arguing for any particular reading.

So, let me get this straight, you argue that there is some worth in the bible, right? Moreso than Yertle The Turtle? If you're willing to concede that there's about as much worth in Yertle The Turtle as there is in the Bible, then I have no argument.

Now, if you want to argue that the bible contains more worth, that implies the existence of a reading which allows humans to learn "useful" knowledge from the bible. If you believe that, I can only presume you know that through a constructive proof, that you know of at least one reading which gives it more value than Yertle The Turtle. What is that reading?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781354]

>>2781336
>Cambridge University
>Who can use the Library?
>All members of the University of Cambridge are welcome to use the Library.
Cambridge is one of the world's most prestigious and excellent universities and its library is exclusive. I could easily go on. Not any university library allows free access.

[Anonymous No.2781355]

>religion vs. science
>semantics dictate the existence of God
>wut

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781359]

>>2781353
>I'm not arguing for a certain reading of the bible, simply that it requires interpretation, like the constitution

>So, let me get this straight, you argue that there is some worth in the bible, right?

>I'm not arguing for a certain reading of the bible, simply that it requires interpretation, like the constitution

I mean, does it fail to register in your head what I am typing or what dude

[Anonymous No.2781362]

>obvious troll thread
>any rage OP wants
>200 posts starting

I've started to feel a bit more exasperated with /sci/ than usual. No matter HOW BLATANT the troll, people flock to answer questions that aren't asked and present evidence that makes no difference to the trolls.

[Anonymous No.2781361]

>>2781218

I gotta tell you; those old Semitic olive-growers really knew their shit. Their writings are still trolling unbelievers thousands of years later.

[Anonymous No.2781363]

>>2781343

100x this. His lectures on the foundation of mathematics are abysmal. But Boolean truth tables are a nifty invention.

[Scientist No.2781369]

>>2781359
>I mean, does it fail to register in your head what I am typing or what dude
Basically, yeah. Anyone talking about the bible as anything other than fiction doesn't really register. I'd like to pin down exactly what you think.

Do you think that the bible has more value and worth than Yertle The Turtle?

[Anonymous No.2781371]

>>2781354
You know, you don't have to counter every one of my arguments. The fact that you do tells me you are insecure.

A sane person would realize that the same journals are available in more than one location and that you don't have to walk into the Cambridge library to read them.

Fuck... Do you really think if you concede one point you are going to lose?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781374]

>>2781369
I don't care about worth, and that has nothing to do with anything I've said in this thread. Worth is relative.

[Anonymous No.2781377]

I'm pretty sure most believers won't admit the bible has been amended. I imagine most americans would admit the constitution has.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781382]

>>2781371
>You know, you don't have to counter every one of my arguments. The fact that you do tells me you are insecure.
Only an insecure person would make that conclusion

>A sane person would realize that the same journals are available in more than one location and that you don't have to walk into the Cambridge library to read them.
That's not the point. You said this information was free in an university, that's not at all the case.

[Anonymous No.2781384]

>>2781106

They both require interpretation sure. But they have different foundations. I would rather base a modern society on enlightenment philosophy than bronze age tribal mythology. This said neither are ideal.

[Anonymous No.2781388]

the constitution does not require interpretation. this 'theory of jurisprudence' is really just a way around it.

the bible was not written to require interpretation either; the theory that it is metaphor is a way to keep it relevant to modern people who recognize how absurd it all is.

the difference between the two is one is based on sound, reasoned principles, and the other on stone-age superstition/tradition.

[Anonymous No.2781389]

Any argument that you have that says the fact that science requires interpretation is equally if not more so applicable to the Bible.

So keep it up.

[Anonymous No.2781390]

>You know, you don't have to counter every one of my arguments. The fact that you do tells me you are insecure.

Seriously, what are you on about?

[Scientist No.2781402]

>>2781374
Ok. Let's back up a bit if you're going to play hard to get.

I believe in an objective reality. Do you? It doesn't have to be fully objective. I'm just asserting that the existence or non-existence of the chair on which I'm sitting is an objective question with a clearly right or wrong "yes/no" answer. If you do not believe in an objective reality, then this conversation is over.

Next, one can derive knowledge as truthful history of this objective natural world by reading Yertle The Turtle, and from reading the bible. Without any prior reasoning, one cannot know if it's fiction or nonfiction. My question to you is simply if there is a reading which makes the bible more non-fiction than fiction. Aka is there a reading which lets me gather true knowledge about objective reality, or are all readings simply fiction and have no particular bearing on objective reality?

[Anonymous No.2781409]

>Any argument that you have that says the fact that science requires interpretation is equally if not more so applicable to the Bible.
Are you comparing linguistics, faith and semantics to concrete falsification?

[Anonymous No.2781413]

>comparing a book about fairies and unicorns to the founding document of a country

[Anonymous No.2781425]

>>2781388
No, you have to be naive to say that the constitution has not be interpreted.

A judge only has to come to some reasoned conclusion that is supposed by the law. The law in no way restricts things so that there is ONE possible reasoned conclusion.

The bible is the same way.

Math and science are specifically designed so there is only one valid conclusion. In that sense there is no "interpretation."

However, I think Deep&Edgy just means "understanding" when he says "interpretation." What is important to science is the number of interpretations, not whether interpretation is required.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781438]

>>2781388
>the constitution does not require interpretation
It's funny that you think there has never been a dispute over rights in the history of the constitution

>the bible was not written to require interpretation either
That is was not written to require it does not mean that it does not.

>>2781402
>Let's back up a bit if you're going to play hard to get.
I'M NOT PLAYING "HARD TO GET", I'M PLAYING "STOP RAISING COMPLETELY UNRELATED ISSUES IN AN EFFORT TO GET ME TO ARGUE ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE THAT MAYBE YOU WON'T TOTALLY FUCK UP AS WELL". NOW FUCK OFF OR ADDRESS MY ARGUMENT

[Anonymous No.2781435]

>>2781409
No, I'm saying that every time Deep&Edgy says that science is bad because it requires interpretation that the argument doubles back on him 10 fold for the Bible. Not that I agree that his arguments are even valid.

[Anonymous No.2781448]

Why hasn't this been reported?

[Anonymous No.2781455]

>>2781438
And your argument is?

[Anonymous No.2781457]

>>2781402

>Next, one can derive knowledge as truthful history of this objective natural world by reading Yertle The Turtle, and from reading the bible. Without any prior reasoning, one cannot know if it's fiction or nonfiction. My question to you is simply if there is a reading which makes the bible more non-fiction than fiction. Aka is there a reading which lets me gather true knowledge about objective reality, or are all readings simply fiction and have no particular bearing on objective reality?

If you phrase it this way, the answer is obviously yes. Take the reading of the "Kings" that treats it as politically motivated historical revisionism of the Israeli people in the 5th century BC. This reading will offer you a glimpse into the history of the middle east in this time period.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781462]

>>2781455
Read the thread

[Anonymous No.2781467]

>document
>requires interpretation
Try that with almost any document. I think you'll find the number striking.

[Scientist No.2781478]

>>2781457
Ok... Does it offer any historical truth over a simple reading? Or is all of it forged and completely independent of history?

The more interesting question is of course the miracle question. Is there any reading of the bible which claims that miracles exist in objective reality? Are any of those reading "reasonable" to hold?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781480]

>>2781467
You're mistaking the sense in which I use the word 'interpret'

[Anonymous No.2781481]

>>2781462
I take this answer as an admission that you have no argument since you have not made a coherent one.

Certainly the original image posted with this thread does not provide any real insight into what your argument may be.

I'm not sure if your image is saying this is true, untrue, if it is being sarcastic or serious.

Troll images are not arguments.

Seeing as how you say you value the meaning and interpretation of words surely you realize you have not made an argument. And if you really value making one you can restate it for me so I don't have to wade through the shit you've left behind in this thread with your stupidity.

[Anonymous No.2781486]

>>2781480
and you made zero effort to clarify that, yet you expect people to address your main point

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781490]

>>2781481
>I take this answer as an admission that you have no argument since you have not made a coherent one.
I take this answer as an admission that you are too lazy to read the thread

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781491]

>>2781486
No-one but you has been retarded enough to mistake the usage, sorry.

Is /sci/ always this full of clueless chucklefucks?

[Anonymous No.2781493]

>>2781478

>Does it offer any historical truth over a simple reading?

-That the people of Israel-Judah circa 500BC considered themselves a separate entity from other Phoenician tribes
-That there was a second Babylonian Empire
-That there was an Assyrian Empire

[Scientist No.2781496]

>>2781491
I'm just curious if you think that there exists some "reasonable" reading of the bible which is consistent with objective reality which also claims that there are miracles in objective reality.

[Anonymous No.2781499]

This thread is now /sci/ related.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781504]

>>2781496
Feel free to make a thread on /lit/ about your completely irrelevant question, I'll be more than happy to engage your concerns there.

[Anonymous No.2781503]

>>2781106

> most powerful country

Are you serious?

[Anonymous No.2781512]

>>2781499

This is actually quite true. The heisenberg uncertainty principle is only there if you impose an interpretation of QM onto it that contains old concepts like waves and localized particles.
It´s not there if you don´t.

[Scientist No.2781519]

>>2781504
I think I speak for all of /sci/ that that is not an irrelevant question. That is the only relevant question to /sci/. Is the bible a rather shitty historical document full of shitty metaphorical non-literal miracles, -or- is the bible possibly a telling of some previous miracles which are internally consistent and consistent with known science?

If you think that there is no reading of the bible which is internally consistent, consistent with known science, and gives literal accounts of real miracles in this objective reality, then you have created a very misleading thread, basically a troll thread.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781527]

>>2781519
>That is the only relevant question to /sci/.
It's not relevant to my thread, but my thread is relevant to /sci/. Feel free to make your own thread.

[Scientist No.2781533]

>>2781527
You are a very crafty little troll sir. I'm going to report this entire thread now.

[Anonymous No.2781535]

>>2781527
Apparently Derp&Derpy requires interpretation as well.

[Anonymous No.2781538]

>>2781519
>>2781527

Behold. This is what happens when the dumbest /lit/ poster goes head to head with the dumbest /sci/ poster. Second to Inurdaes, perhaps.

[Scientist No.2781542]

>>2781538
I doubt I'll do anything to change your mind, but I'd like to note that I am annoyed.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2781543]

Okay good game guys but as always /lit/ came up comfortably on top, just another reason why you should understand the importance of interpretation and not be a number crunching drone zealot with a degree in engineering

/LIT/ = 1 /SCI/ = SWEET FUCK ALL /LIT/ = 1 /SCI/ = SWEET FUCK ALL /LIT/ = 1 /SCI/ = SWEET FUCK ALL /LIT/ = 1 /SCI/ = SWEET FUCK ALL /LIT/ = 1 /SCI/ = SWEET FUCK ALL /LIT/ = 1 /SCI/ = SWEET FUCK ALL /LIT/ = 1 /SCI/ = SWEET FUCK ALL /LIT/ = 1 /SCI/ = SWEET FUCK ALL /LIT/ = 1 /SCI/ = SWEET FUCK ALL /LIT/ = 1 /SCI/ = SWEET FUCK ALL /LIT/ = 1 /SCI/ = SWEET FUCK ALL /LIT/ = 1 /SCI/ = SWEET FUCK ALL /LIT/ = 1 /SCI/ = SWEET FUCK ALL /LIT/ = 1 /SCI/ = SWEET FUCK ALL /LIT/ = 1 /SCI/ = SWEET FUCK ALL

I'm gonna hit the hay now

[Anonymous No.2781571]

>>2781543
>science
>importance of interpretation

[Reiiama Kotsu, Inevitable No.2781606]

>>2781106
The difference is we use the Constitution as the basis for a code of laws, as opposed to the Bible which is moral guidelines and notably (supposed to be) separate from the government (at least in the US).