[ 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: 64 KB, 564x685, 8a937b7c2319be52c09a40bf74d6c400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9845245 No.9845245 [Reply] [Original]

Why do so many normies believe in horoscopes,pseudoscience and numerology?

>> No.9845256

The same reason why they believe in the state: confirmation bias.

>> No.9845258

Dumb people, not "normies." This site is worse than horoscope readers in this regard, especially polturds. They'll believe literally anything as long as it fits their preconceived ideas.

>> No.9845265

>>9845245
Everything in the pseudoscience column describes perfectly internet atheists.

>> No.9845270

>>9845245
It's the natural state of consciousness to look for what is true beyond facts that must be tied down to millions of repeatable laboratory experiments.

>> No.9845384

Why do so many normies believe in anthropomorphic climate change?

>> No.9845427
File: 62 KB, 1857x407, Evolution.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9845427

>>9845245
Why does the right hand side sound exactly like the study of evolution?

>> No.9845482

>>9845427
your image of evolution

>> No.9845557

>>9845245
Why shov;dn't they
:i}e is aim;ess

>> No.9845587

>>9845245
Lack of education, together with a general hostility against education in some countries and/or demographic groups (they call it "indoctrination")

>> No.9845648

>>9845265

"vague jargon"? "Every god everyone has ever presented me with is provably not existent" is not that vague or unclear. And YES, i use "prove" in the strict logical sense here.

>> No.9845650

>>9845648
define existent and prove

>> No.9845653

>>9845650

prove : constructing a logical chain of steps that shows something to be the case with absolute certainty.

existenence : the ability to interact with reality and therefore being a part of it.

>> No.9845655

>>9845650

and even if we go with a way weaker form of atheism than mine, the smallest common denominatior, it's "I do not believe in any gods". I do not find this to be unclear either.

>> No.9845657

>>9845648
>"Every god everyone has ever presented me with is provably not existent"
What's the proof?

>> No.9845662

>>9845657

depends on the god people present me with. Thats why i do not exclude all gods, someone could come up with a valid definition and evidence today :P

For some gods it's easy. E.g. a merciful just god. Its easy because mercy is the suspension of justice, leading to a logical contradiction ( law of noncontradiction). Other definitions of gods are not sound definitions in the first place by being non-specific, purely tautological or appealing to a bigger mystery, not allowing fo them to be evaluated at all ( in reminiscence of wolfgang pauli : "Not only is this not true, it's not even false")

>> No.9845669

>>9845662
>E.g. a merciful just god. Its easy because mercy is the suspension of justice, leading to a logical contradiction ( law of noncontradiction)
What if you don't assume that the law of noncontradiction is true?

>> No.9845673

>>9845669

if we don't assume the laws of logic we can't even make any valid statement, any speech and even thought becomes meaningless and there is no statement about a "god" we can make that is true, the discussion ends because we can not possibly have any point.

>> No.9845677

>>9845673
>if we don't assume the laws of logic we can't even make any valid statement, any speech and even thought becomes meaningless and there is no statement about a "god" we can make that is true, the discussion ends because we can not possibly have any point.
There are many logical systems with different sets of axioms, not assuming the law of noncontradiction does not mean not assuming any other laws. Are you saying that one can't come to logical conclusions without assuming that the law of noncontradiction is true?

>> No.9845682

>>9845677

in the normal binary logic i used here the laws of logic are necessities. Of course i'd have to change my statement if we want to use a different logic ( for example fuzzy logic). I am , however, not aware of any logical systems lacks distinctive logical categories ( that is what the law of noncontradiction means in a more abstract manner). Without distinct logical categories you can't have any logical system since this is the only way to classify things.

>> No.9845691

>>9845682
>. I am , however, not aware of any logical systems lacks distinctive logical categories ( that is what the law of noncontradiction means in a more abstract manner).
I just suggested such a system, "normal binary logic" as you call it, but without assuming the law of noncontradiction.

>Without distinct logical categories you can't have any logical system since this is the only way to classify things.
There can still be distinct logical categories without assuming the law of noncontradiction.

>> No.9845702

>>9845691

Actually they can't. If the law of noncontradiction is not true anymore, then , speaking mathematically, no form of equation or logical derivation holds true anymore, since inference stops working. They all assume that for distinct sets A and B the statement "X is an element of A" also implies "X is not an element of B".The bivalence principle collapses, because it is not true anymore that any valid logical form is true of false. The law of excluded middle collapses, because a logical form now can be true AND false, I.e. of 3 fundamental laws of binary logic, 3 just went out of the window.
A little less abstract : language itself stops being useful. Why? "This car is only red" no longer means "This car is not only green".

>> No.9845711

>>9845702
>They all assume that for distinct sets A and B the statement "X is an element of A" also implies "X is not an element of B".
How are you defining distinct? The sets {n in Z | n >= 0} and {n in Z | n <= 0} are distinct (by dictionary definition, you can distinguish the two since only the first contains 1), but "0 is an element of the first set" does not imply "0 is not an element of the second set".

>The bivalence principle collapses, because it is not true anymore that any valid logical form is true of false.
Why does this follow?

>The law of excluded middle collapses, because a logical form now can be true AND false
Do you even know what the law of excluded middle is? A logical form being true and false does not "collapse" the law of excluded middle.

>A little less abstract : language itself stops being useful. Why? "This car is only red" no longer means "This car is not only green".
This is just a reflection of the logic being used, the usefulness judgment is subjective.

>> No.9845715

>>9845711
>The bivalence principle collapses, because it is not true anymore that any valid logical form is true of false.
Do you even know what the bivalence principle is? A logical form being true and false does not "collapse" the bivalence principle.*

>The law of excluded middle collapses, because a logical form now can be true AND false
Why does this follow?*

>> No.9845716

>>9845245
Because it's easy to understand. With particular reference to personality pseudosciences, it allows normies to blame their bad behaviour on external forces. i.e. "I'm not actually a bad person, it's just my given horoscope teehee"

>> No.9845719

numerology is real
https://www.gematrix.org/?word=alexander+grothendieck

>> No.9845728

>>9845711

With distinct i meant sets, that have no common elements. Without the law of noncontradiction i can not discern wether such sets exist, since the statement "A and B are distinct, therefore X in A implies X not in B" can not be evaluated to be true anymore.

And okay, here comes the math :
law of noncontradiction does not hold true, therefore n(A a nA) is false, meaning A a nA is true.
The bivalence principle is : for each A, A o nA =
n(nA a A) is true. Contradiction.

the law of excluded middle is : n(A a nA) is true.
direct contradiction with the assumption that the law of contradiction doesn't hold true.

And nope, the "usefullness judgement" was pretty objective, at least if we just assume for a second language actually is a tool to communicate statements about the world then it objectively loses its use.

>> No.9845743

>>9845728
>With distinct i meant sets, that have no common elements. Without the law of noncontradiction i can not discern wether such sets exist, since the statement "A and B are distinct, therefore X in A implies X not in B" can not be evaluated to be true anymore.
Your claim was that "no form of equation or logical derivation holds true anymore, since inference stops working", but there are equations and logical derivations that do not require the law of non-contradiction, so I'm not sure what the relevance of this particular derivation is.

>law of noncontradiction does not hold true, therefore n(A a nA) is false
I suggested a logical system where one does not assume that the law of noncontradiction was true, not a logical system where one assumes it to be false.

>the law of excluded middle is : n(A a nA) is true.
Actually what you wrote is the law of noncontradiction, not the law of excluded middle. I'd suggest going and reading what the law of excluded middle actually is.

>And nope, the "usefullness judgement" was pretty objective, at least if we just assume for a second language actually is a tool to communicate statements about the world then it objectively loses its use.
It is subjective, since "This car is only red" no longer implying "This car is not only green" does not prevent "This car is not only green" from being true by other means.

>> No.9845748

>>9845743

I am not sure of how you could have any equation without the law of noncontradiction. I mean, the definition of a relation needs it to work out. Logics and set theory are intertwined, and without it you can't have mathematics.

in ANY binary logical system "not true" is the same as "false" if the bivalence principle holds.

to the law of excluded middle : if you have the simple rule of double negation : A = nnA it is trivially the same, good you noticed. Maybe i should have written this step out^^^

Thats the nice thing about being an atheist though. I dont have to think about throwing logical laws out just so my imaginary friend stays there^^

"True by other means". What definition for truth do you use here? For me, truth always meant that which is the case.

>> No.9845749

>>9845748
>I am not sure of how you could have any equation without the law of noncontradiction.
By the law of identity. And as for logical deductions, I'm still not sure why you think they universally require the law of noncontradiction.

>in ANY binary logical system "not true" is the same as "false" if the bivalence principle holds.
Do you not understand what an assumption is? If I don't assume something to be true, that doesn't mean I'm assuming it to not be true.

>to the law of excluded middle : if you have the simple rule of double negation : A = nnA it is trivially the same
But the double negation of the law of excluded middle is not the law of noncontradiction, it's the law of excluded middle again. Are you sure you're aware of what the law of excluded middle is? Here, have a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

>Thats the nice thing about being an atheist though. I dont have to think about throwing logical laws out just so my imaginary friend stays there^^
But those logical laws are your imaginary friends.

>"True by other means". What definition for truth do you use here? For me, truth always meant that which is the case.
True by whichever logical system is under consideration. Is your logic system objectively less useful than one in which every statement implies "This car is not only green"?

>> No.9845757

>>9845749

equations require a binary equality relation.
those relations have to be reflexive. And, as by my car example, they are not anymore.

And yeah i understand what assumptions are. But we are talking about formal logics here. And in formal logic there is no such thing as withholding belief ;)

The logical laws are the fundamentals we ALL have to take if we want to have any meaningful conversation. There's no way without it. Thats pretty different from anything extra. But yeah, if someone doesn't want to have any meaningful conversation i dont force anybody to do it^^
If your god is more important to you than being rational and having actually true beliefs, there's no way of arguing with you ;)

>> No.9845763

>>9845245
because most humans lack the intelligence for even most basic logical thinking

>> No.9845769

>>9845757
>equations require a binary equality relation.
>those relations have to be reflexive. And, as by my car example, they are not anymore.
I'm not sure what your car has to do with the law of identity. x = x is true by the law of identity and does not require the law of noncontradiction.

>And in formal logic there is no such thing as withholding belief ;)
Then why do you need "This car is only red" to imply "This car is not only green"? If you don't withhold belief then you must already know the truth value of "This car is not only green" in your logic system.

>The logical laws are the fundamentals we ALL have to take if we want to have any meaningful conversation. There's no way without it. Thats pretty different from anything extra.
But intuitionist mathematics exists without the law of excluded middle, are you implying those mathematicians do not have any meaningful conversations?

>If your god is more important to you than being rational and having actually true beliefs, there's no way of arguing with you ;)
If your favorite logic system is more important to you than being rational and having actually true beliefs, there's no way of arguing with you ;)

>> No.9845928

>>9845662
>>9845669
>>9845673
>>9845677

arguing about atheism gets you nowhere. It's really pointless.

>> No.9846635

>>9845648
How did Atheists go from "there is no consensus" to "everyone has fundamentally inconsistent opinions"? And what the fuck does that have to do with Internet Atheists using vague jargon (which is factually correct and has a lot to do with most of them being philosophy, psychology or biology majors i.e. not scientists)?

>> No.9846641

>>9845245

Why do so many normies believe that government isn't run by pedophiles?

>> No.9846650

>>9845662
price to me right fucking now that Thor doesn’t exist Faggot

>> No.9847070

>>9846635
they aren't any kind of major they are 15 year olds playing COD

>> No.9847104

>>9845245
Because it doesn't particularly affect them whether or not horoscopes are real or not. Trusting some newspaper column saying "opportunities may be coming your way, stay alert" or similarly general garbage doesn't reduce your quality of life if you live by it. My guess is there is also some component where people enjoy pretending in some mysticism in their daily lives, particularly if it claims something good will happen to them. Its hard to extend judgement to topics like religion or morality, but for the low grade shit I feel this is accurate.

>> No.9847196

>>9845245
That chart is just namecalling. There are plenty of examples of real scientists guilty of everything in the "bad" column.

>> No.9847576

>>9847196
Literally every single field of science except physics is guilty of everything in the bad column. Even then physics has some retards chasing phantoms like String Theory because "the math works" while they ignore the complete lack of any empirical evidence (and they have been looking, they just move the goalposts every time it fails experimentally).