[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 102 KB, 648x736, 1357408183061.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5781409 No.5781409 [Reply] [Original]

Why do engineers find the definition of engineer as, "someone who applies science to the real world", to be offensive?

I don't find it offensive, because, it's completely true, that's what an engineer does and that's not a bad thing.

>> No.5781415 [DELETED] 

The problem is that definition is it is so broad it makes 100% of the population an engineer. Anyone who's used an acid to unclog a drain is a chemical engineer.

An engineer is someone who's gone through extensive education so that they can apply science to the real world at a professional level.

>> No.5781420

>overgeneralizing

>> No.5781419

Hm. I always figured engineers were synonymous with monkeys that can memorize formulas.

>> No.5781422

>>5781409
That definition is so broad it makes 100% of the population an engineer. Anyone who has used an acid to unclog a drain is a chemical engineer. Also some people will be offended it implies science is not part of the "real world".


An engineer is someone who uses science to solve problems. An engineer has gone through extensive education to do this at a professional level.

>> No.5781435

>>5781422
>"a scientist is everyone who does science"
>everyone has done science at one point in their life
>thus everyone is a scientist
there's an imaginary "professionally" in there, and there also is in op's description

>> No.5781449

>>5781409
Scientists do research
Engineers apply research
The majority of people who define themselves as one or the other do both.

>> No.5781455

>someone who applies science to the real world<
A good engineer applies the science correctly.
A bad engineer applies the science incorrectly.
A brilliant engineer applies the science randomly, but gets a good result.

>> No.5781800

>>5781455
The best engineers are the laziest engineers
>mfw learning this personally around hard workfags
I think there is a knack involved

>> No.5781807

>>5781409
It's more than just science. There's a lot of praxis involved.

>> No.5781849

>>5781409
Because that definition feels like it greatly understates what engineers actually do. True, in the barest sense, we're just applying scientific laws to real-world problems - but engineering is still complex and interesting in systems where the science involved has been fully known for over a century. The process of SOLVING those problems- the system of puzzles, of trying and failing, of insights and kludges, that goes in between "science" and "real-world applications" is what makes up engineering- that definition gives the skin, and the bones, but leaves out all of the meat.

>> No.5781861

>>5781449
Mathematicians do research
Scientists apply research in new and interesting ways
Engineers implement applications en masse

>> No.5781873

>>5781807
Isn't the praxis just a the product of an education to apply science professionally?

I mean one that applies science professionally certainly balances knowledge with action.

>> No.5781883

Scientists are people who study the natural/physiological world as a profession.

>> No.5781889
File: 32 KB, 740x308, purity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5781889

I'll just leave this here.

>> No.5781907

>>5781409

Engineers have their own theories and stuff too. Think about it like computer programming languages. High level languages are more abstract, simplified, and user-friendly. Lower level languages are closer to the CPU, and are more of a controlled/direct way of doing things. Physics is the low level field. It deals directly with the universe. Engineering is a bit removed, it's higher level. Physics may deal with gravity but Engineering deals with loads and stresses. Engineers have their own equations and methods of exploring the problems they solve. Engineering is also more specific. Physics deals with generalizations about the entire universe. Engineering deals with the physical components at hand. A truss of a bridge, a bolt in a car, an engine on a an airplane. They create their own generalizations about the design and creation of technology.

So to say they just apply science is a bit of an oversimplification.

>> No.5781909

>>5781889
And off your screen would be philosophy

>> No.5781910

>>5781889

>woman mathematician

privilege checked

>> No.5781950

>>5781909
Philosophy is not pure at all.
Logic and mathematical logic as sciencies are.
But philosophy? No

>> No.5781962

>>5781950
Philosophy is basically the all encompassing truth. Good philosophy relies on logic, which is at the top of the list, above mathematics. Any explanation of the universe must start with a qualitative statement and not a quantifiable one (math). Because just the numbers with no conceptual background makes no sense and is meaningless. You're thinking of philosophy as some weird worldviews people stir up. That's not what real philosophy is.

>> No.5781975

>>5781950
>philosophy
>not pure

It's the purest fucking subject in Academia. Are you fucking high?

That's why you can barely do anything with it. It's so ridiculously "pure" that you can't apply it to the real world in any huge way other than write books/essays. In the early and mid 20th century, the best mathematicians were usually logicians who took philosophy VERY seriously.

The fucking axiom of choice has roots in philosophical discourse. The basic principles of set theory come forth from philosophy, specifically the study of Logic. Most mathematicians and physicists in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries were instructed to study philosophy alongside their chosen field of scientific study because it gave them further insight. Mathematics is practically the fucking birth child of Philosophy. Holy shit, I've never seen such a stupid fucking post.

Mad? Mad? I'm not mad, I'm just startled.

>> No.5781980

>>5781950
Also
>Logic
>mathematical logic
>not apart of the grand whole that is philosophy.

I can't even fucking comprehend where you fucking come from.

>> No.5781986

>>5781980
>>5781975
>make up definitions and is shocked that other people dont adhere to them.

>> No.5781989

>>5781975
Thank you for this post.
I love you. Especially the part about being so pure its hard to apply in any practical way. It's unfortunate. But philosophy should not be disrespected like it is so much by internet "scientists."

>> No.5782024

>>5781409
I'm a physicist. Whenever subject of engineers comes up, what you say is usually mentioned but there's always some dickbag that appends "...and they don't really understand what they are doing". I mean almost fucking always. So I guess it's something like Pavlov's dog response.

>> No.5782332
File: 27 KB, 775x387, science-vs-philosofaggotry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5782332

>>5781980
Philosophy is useless and philosophers do not understand mathematical logic. Neither do they understand science.

>> No.5782647

>>5782332
Do you think mathematical logic is some separate form of logic? Are you really making an appeal to polylogism? Mathematical logic is just analytic statements based on logic using symbols. You are stupid. Science used to mean "perfect knowledge" and was more broad. Now science is basically synonymous with empirical testing with the scientific method. Which is a way of gathering empirical data. They understand science very easily. It is you who fails to understand philosophy.

>> No.5782654

>>5782647
>>>/x/

>> No.5782670
File: 44 KB, 576x713, philosofaggotry.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5782670

>>5782647
Philosophy became obsolete in the 19th century when the scientific method was invented.

>> No.5782674

engineers find that offensive, since when? i'm an engineer and i don't.

>> No.5782680

I bet philosophers think they're smarter than engineers.

>> No.5782685

>>5782670
>>5782654

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group"

Do you see the difference between real philosophy and the colloquial use of it. Are you mentally retarded or what?

Do you see the contradiction with the statement

"All knowledge must come from empirical data"

Do you? You probably don't. Because you don't even logic, which is what philosophy is.

>> No.5782689

>>5782685
>such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind

In other words: unimportant drivel without practical implications.

>> No.5782692

>>5782680
I bet you think you're smarter than the average /b/ poster.

>> No.5782697
File: 41 KB, 430x538, Philosophy-Major-Most-Interesting-Man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5782697

>>5782685
>Do you see the contradiction with the statement
>"All knowledge must come from empirical data"
No, I don't. There is no problem with a correct statement. Learn the scientific method.

>Because you don't even logic
Unlike you I am familiar with several kinds of mathematical logic.

>which is what philosophy is.
Philosophers cannot into logic. They think appeals to emotion count as "logical arguments". Almost all philososhits would fail a real logic course.

>> No.5782702

>>5782680
I know at least one philosophy student who thinks that way. In addition, he thinks philosophy is more useful to mankind than engineering.

>> No.5782707

banana pants sausage
Prove that the above statement isn't philosophical.
Prove that philosophy exists.
Prove that proof is proof.

I BET NONE OF YOU CAN. YOU CAN ONLY GUESS. EVEN THAT IS A GUESS. MWAHAHAHAHA!!!

>> No.5782720

>>5782697
You've heard of Aristotle, Frege, Gödel, Russell, and Wittgenstein, right?

>> No.5782723

>>5782697
>Philosophers cannot into logic. They think appeals to emotion count as "logical arguments". Almost all philososhits would fail a real logic course.
Scientists cannot into emotion. They think appeals to logic count as "philosophical arguments". Almost all scienshits would fail a real Buddha course.

>> No.5782727
File: 62 KB, 321x222, philosophy is gay.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5782727

>>5782720
Yes and I already told you that philosophy is obsolete because we have science now.

>>5782723
kek

>> No.5782735

>>5782727
Ethics, as fundamental part of philosophy, as well?

>> No.5782769

>>5782735
Yes. Pointless, irrational, unimportant and insignificant shenanigans are a waste of time.

>> No.5782775

>>5782769
nuff said

>> No.5783005

>>5781975
>Purest subject in academia
Is that the same definition of acedemia used by art historians and poets?
Logic would be to the right of math on that xkcd comic because math is logic applied to a set of concrete symbols, numbers. And no matter what species is studying it, logic is logic is logic, everywhere in the universe (though that applies to other fields as well.). Most of philosophy deals with humans and human experience, like psychology and sociology, and is therefore NOT pure. You wouldn't contact an alien species and expect them to have exactly the same philosophy as humans. But they would have exactly the same logic, math, physics, and chemistry. So stop trying to defend your pseudo-intellectual nonsense.

>> No.5783010

>>5782727
>philosophy is obsolete because we have science now
You realize this is a philosophical statement?

>> No.5783019

>>5783005
>But they would have exactly the same logic, math, physics, and chemistry.

Not that guy, but no, not at all.
You do not know the first thing about logic or math to assume that. What is a branch cut? What is a monotonic consequence relation? What is a fuzzy truth value? The aliens would have everything defined their own way, just like we do.

>> No.5783017

>>5781889

Psychology isn't applied biology at all. It's a fucking pseudoscience.

>> No.5783026

>>5783010
No, it isn't. It's simply an observational truth.

>>5783017
Apparently you don't understand the scientific method, fucktard.

>> No.5783027

>>5783017
Are you me?
And do you feel the same about economics?
>>5782720
I've heard of Aristotle, sure. He sat around and philosophized all day until he came to the conclusion that all matter was made of four elements and the four humors controlled your emotions and wellness, and this we have the story of how science got held back for over a thousand years.
The rest are nobodies.
But I wonder if you've heard of Newton, Galileo, and Einstein?

>> No.5783031

>>5783026
What did you observe? What measuring device did you use?

>> No.5783034

>>5783026

>implying Jung or Freud used the scientific method

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>> No.5783033

>>5783019
If the aliens perceive the world like we do then they would describe its phenomena the same way. A wave is a wave, a straight line is a straight line, evidence is evidence. Relativistic post-modernist idiocy is non-sense.

>> No.5783036

>>5783019
Of course they would have different names. But these concepts still work no matter where you are in the universe and could be discovered independently by any other species. Philosophy, psychology, and sociology, however, are subjective and do not deal exclusively with universal truths.

>> No.5783040

>>5783027
>And do you feel the same about economics?

I feel like economics has some bullshit but is mostly sound, albeit imprecise and kind ofa young discipline.

It's certainly more accurate to say 'Economics is applied mathematics' or 'economics is applied game theory' than it is to say 'psychology is applied biology.'

>> No.5783039

>>5783034
Do you really believe Jung and Freud are still accepted in psychology? Hahaha, oh wow. Let me laugh even harder. You are so fucking ignorant of psychology, all we can do ITT is ridicule your utter lack of knowledge.

>> No.5783045

>>5783039
>Do you really believe Jung and Freud are still accepted in psychology? Hahaha, oh wow. Let me laugh even harder. You are so fucking ignorant of psychology, all we can do ITT is ridicule your utter lack of knowledge.

Yes, because they are. My girlfriend was a spych major and she knew all about Jung's personality types and all that other bullshit. This is because psychology is fucking voodoo and you're allowed to have different 'theories' like in philosophy or homeopathic medicine.

>> No.5783051

>>5783033
>If the aliens perceive the world like we do

What makes you assume they do? Even a human can perceive the world differently, by doing drugs.
>A wave is a wave, a straight line is a straight line, evidence is evidence.
The laws of thought are based on experiences of relations and/or connections that are "integrated" in our daily lives. Yeah, the aliens would probably have the same laws of thought if they live in the same universe. That, however, does not mean AT ALL that they'd have the same math or logic, just that they'd "feel" of certain things the same way we do. The laws of thought are nowhere strong enough to define an entire fucking logic system.

What is the square root of 4? 2? -2? A set containing 2 and -2? Or an entirely different mathematical object, like i which we use to define sqrt(-1)?

>> No.5783049

>>5783031
He observed the number of contributions to human society made by philosophy and by science against time.
>>5783039
a) Then why are they still taught about?
b) Do modern psychologists have a way of PROVING their hypotheses?
And don't say through neurology. That's a separate science.
>>5783045
This guy hit the nail on the head. Any field that has schools of thought is not a scientific field.

>> No.5783055

>>5783036
Logic is subjective and does not deal exclusively with universal truths.

>> No.5783063

>>5781861
I thought mathematicians mostly just masturbate. In scientific terms of course.

>> No.5783075

>>5781889
And philosophy is just applied sociology and math is just applied philosophy and so we go around, never able to learn about anything outside the circle.

>> No.5783078

>>5783063
>I thought
That's where you went wrong.

>> No.5783083

>>5783078
I was made to?

>> No.5783093

>>5783063
We do, and we love every minute of it.

>> No.5783094

>>5783051
>laws of thought
This is why philosophy is retarded. These are not laws, whatever the hell they are. If they were laws, they would be taught in science classes. Thermodynamics is a law. It is always true.
>what is the square root of 4
It is whatever makes mathematics internally consistent. It can be shown that both 2 squared and -2 squared equal 4, therefore the square root of 4 is both 2 and -2.
>>5783055
Good job knowing absolutely nothing about logic.
Let's say something may be true or false. True and false have ties to the physical universe; the fact that there is gravity is true, and the fact that the sun is a black hole is false. True and false are universal concepts because they rely solely on observation.
Now, we can say that not true is false, and not false is true. Nothing else makes any sense.
True and false is false; true and true is true. No matter what symbol you use to represent "and", this will always be true because nothing else makes sense.
This is why logic is universal truth.
Now explain to me how ethics is universal truth.
>>5783063
Mathematics is often applied to science, but it's always the scientists doing the application.

>> No.5783108

>>5783094
>True and false are universal concepts because they rely solely on observation.
You contradict yourself. Unless you are saying observation is a method that gives universal truths? The universe is in my head? If I perceive you to be a snail, you are a snail?

>Nothing else makes any sense.
Not to you, but maybe it makes sense to aliens. That's the idea behind the laws of thought. We have the laws of thought as the basis for everything because our experiences tell us that it'd be absurd to think otherwise. By saying that thermodynamics is an absolute truth you are going even further than the laws of thought, which you claim to be bullshit, since thermodynamics is based on the laws of thought.

>Now explain to me how ethics is universal truth.
No idea. Go ask some psychologist/sociologist. But stop associating philosophy with that shit if you don't know anything about it.

>> No.5783145

>>5783108
>Not to you, but maybe it makes sense to aliens.
Explain to me how "false" could ever, ever, ever be the same as "true".
>thermodynamics is based on the laws of thought.
Thermodynamics have been proven and proven and proven. There is literally no subjectivity to it. Entropy ALWAYS increases in a closed system. It doesn't matter how you think about it, it just does.
>But stop associating philosophy with that shit if you don't know anything about it.
>Ethics, also known as moral philosophy which refers to the reflection upon moral actions, is a branch of philosophy
>-Wikipedia
Good job knowing your own field.

>> No.5783154

>>5783145
>Explain to me how "false" could ever, ever, ever be the same as "true".
Simple. You define it so. Just like you defined thermodynamics.
You contradict yourself and confuse me. You claim the laws of thought to be bullshit, yet you're right now describing the law of non-contradiction, which is one of the 3 classic laws of thought.

>Thermodynamics have been proven and proven and proven. There is literally no subjectivity to it.
Too bad you used subjective logic for your "proofs". And then you call the basis of your own logic retarded. Do you even know what is a law of thought?

>> No.5783158

>>5783094
>Thermodynamics is a law. It is always true.
I remember one of my chemistry teachers who spent a whole afternoon stressing the point that theories were just "the most accurate model we have presently" and that they were all subject to change through observation.

A law is a just a theorem derived from a theory, it's only absolutely true if the theory is true and no theory is absolutely true.

>> No.5783162

>>5783158
I forgot to say, I only made that comment because I thought it needed to be made, I agree with you're overall point though.

>> No.5783164

>>5783145
>>5783154 here,
>It doesn't matter how you think about it, it just does.
Again you contradict yourself. Before, you said observation is the measurement of absolute truth (so it matters, how you think about it). Now you say it doesn't matter how you observe/think.

>> No.5783228

>>5783154
>Simple. You define it so.
Sure, but then -your definitions would not represent reality-. In -reality-, the fact that not true is false and not false is true is absolute truth. They -must be-.
>Too bad you used subjective logic for your "proofs".
Really?
>Entropy ALWAYS increases in a closed system.
That is not subjective logic. It just IS.
>they were all subject to change through observation.
Yeah.
>A law is a just a theorem derived from a theory, it's only absolutely true if the theory is true and no theory is absolutely true.
I could have sworn that a law is only a law if it didn't have to be based on any uncertain theory.
>Now you say it doesn't matter how you observe/think.
Right. No matter how fast you go, the speed of light is always 300 million meters per second. And as I said, entropy always increases in a closed system. You can observe those things how ever you want; they will still be true. The workings of the universe do not depend on what you think about them. If the whole human race thought the sun was blue it wouldn't be true. The fact is that it radiates yellow light, not blue. That can be shown using instruments and experiments.
But observation can be used to verify theories and hypotheses.

>> No.5783265

>>5783228
>The workings of the universe do not depend on what you think about them. If the whole human race thought the sun was blue it wouldn't be true. The fact is that it radiates yellow light, not blue. That can be shown using instruments and experiments.
If you thought the sun was blue, you would still be here in this same argument, and nothing would be different. You would be wrong, but the point is, you could be wrong right now. What if it -doesn't- -actually- radiate yellow light, but blue? Yeah, you're right, no one would give a fuck since we learned from our experiences that it is yellow. We'd be wrong, but we'd think we're right.
And that's why it matters what we think of it, how we perceive it.
The sun is inside your head. You are alone thinking it is yellow. I am a figment of your imagination.

I JUST WANT TO GET MY POINT ACROSS:
You think the universe is objective and absolute. I think it's subjective and relative.
Well, we could both be right. Objectivity is defined by the PREPONDERANCE of SUBJECTIVE experiences, but even if it was defined by a minority, it'd still be just as subjective.

>> No.5783270

>>5783228
Also, do you think reality is created by your experiences, or the other way around, or do they both influence each other, or does it not matter to you?

>> No.5783290

>I am a figment of your imagination.
And this is why philosophy is not taken seriously.
>I think it's subjective and relative.
If you can prove to me that entropy can even once decrease in a closed system or that the speed of light can ever change, then I'll believe you. Otherwise, accept that philosophy is bull.
>>5783270
Reality is reality. What you and I think about it is moot except as it serves ourselves. It makes no difference.
If reality was created by experiences, there would have had to be a conscious presence at the Big Bang. You don't need me to explain that one, I hope.

>> No.5783305

>>5783290
>Reality is reality. What you and I think about it is moot except as it serves ourselves. It makes no difference.
Experience is experience. What is "really" out there is moot except as it serves that which is out there. It makes no difference.

>If reality was created by experiences, there would have had to be a conscious presence at the Big Bang. You don't need me to explain that one, I hope.
Not necessarily, maybe consciousness has causal influence backwards in time, also how do you know there wasn't some sort of (primitive) conscious presence at the big bang? This is getting ridiculous so no more on this subject please.

>If you can prove to me that entropy can even once decrease in a closed system or that the speed of light can ever change, then I'll believe you. Otherwise, accept that philosophy is bull.
Entropy is defined relative to an observer. Since you understand thermodynamics, you understand this. Working backwards through time, entropy decreases. We don't perceive backwards through time, therefore entropy increases (FOR US).

>or that the speed of light can ever change
I'll assume by speed of light you mean c and not actual speed of light since that is very easy to change.
This is a tricky one. The speed of light is quite persistent, even relative to other observers, but I'm sure a string extending through the time dimension would "perceive" it to be different.

>> No.5783319

>Experience is experience. What is "really" out there is moot except as it serves that which is out there. It makes no difference.
Except when it does. We may think there's a floor beneath our feet when we really just fell off a cliff. Whether we think so or not, either way we're just as dead. So your point is invalid.
>maybe consciousness has causal influence backwards in time
Yeah, maybe. But you just showed why philosophy is bunk. You have no empirical evidence for this and yet you try to use it to refute my points.
>We don't perceive backwards through time, therefore entropy increases (FOR US).
Nothing goes faster than the speed of light. So time never flows backwards. So we come back to my point that entropy always increases as time flows.
>but I'm sure a string extending through the time dimension would "perceive" it to be different.
Just like I said before, this is something you just conjured up out of your imagination with absolutely no evidence that a) there could ever be a "string" extending through time or b) that it really would perceive c differently.

>> No.5783342

>>5783319
>We may think there's a floor beneath our feet when we really just fell off a cliff.
Clearly you thought you fell off a cliff if you did. Otherwise it won't matter.

>Whether we think so or not, either way we're just as dead.
You can't die. Even if you could, you would not be able to think.

>the rest of your post
You don't get it at all, you use strawmen and ad hominems and fail to understand even the most basic philosophical concepts (subjectivity vs objectivity). This discussion is over.

>> No.5783346

>>5781422
>acid
>unclogging drains

lel idiot

>> No.5783344

>>5783319
Also time does not fucking flow, you do. "The river of time" is Newton age bullshit.
Einstein agreed, all the most famous scientists agreed. Now shut the fuck up.

>> No.5783351

>ad hominems
Not once did I attack you as a person in that post. I attacked what you said. Learn what an ad hominem is.
Retarded fucking philosophers.

>> No.5783355

>>5783351
I know what an ad hominem is.
You attacked my post because of what your perception of me is. That is an ad hominem.

>> No.5783356

>>5781909
philosophy is just applied qualia

>> No.5783363

>You can't die.
wat

>>5783355
No. I said that you were imagining things and offering them as arguments when you have no evidence for them, like your hypothesis about the string extending through time. If you would kindly show me some evidence for what you are saying then we can have a constructive argument.

>> No.5783361

>>5783356
best post in the thread

>> No.5783374

>>5783363
>wat
Based on the definition of "you", yeah, you can't die. There'd be no you.

> No. I said that you were imagining things and offering them as arguments when you have no evidence for them, like your hypothesis about the string extending through time. If you would kindly show me some evidence for what you are saying then we can have a constructive argument.
Ok, any string can be thought as a string extending through time. The point is that from its point of view (if it could perceive, but it can't, thus perception matters), the speed of light would be different.

The speed of light is just something that is constant for "typical" observers. We are all on a random walk through time but clearly a similar one. Not that it'd matter, since observers that perceive time too differently can't communicate (see "arrow of time" on wiki).

>> No.5783394

>There'd be no you.
That's the definition of dying. I don't even know what to say to this, to be honest.

The point is that whether or not you perceive yourself falling off a cliff is irrelevant; either way you will still accelerate due to gravity and come to a quick stop at the bottom, and die from the impact. I used this to explain why the universe is not dependent upon the observer.

>The point is that from its point of view (if it could perceive, but it can't, thus perception matters), the speed of light would be different.
But it doesn't matter because there is no physically possible point of view from which c is different. You can imagine a situation where it would be, but it would be confined to the realm of fiction. It has nothing to do with science.

>> No.5784240

>>5783034
>>5783045
>>5783049
>believing that "psychology" is one big lump of theories
>not knowing the distinction between the psychodynamic, behaviourist, cognitive, humanist, and biological perspectives
Two of these are pseudoscience, the rest are not.

>> No.5784242

>>5783158
>>5783162
Thermodynamics is more than a theory. It's based on so basic intuitions about how the world works that not accepting it would be like not accepting that if a belongs to B and B is a subset of C, a belongst to C.

>> No.5784254

>>5781962
>quantifiable statements
>numbers with no conceptual background
I believe you're the one who don't know what real mathematics is.