|
On June 27 2011 20:29 Sarmis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 20:25 deathly rat wrote:On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote:On June 27 2011 18:40 deathly rat wrote:
More over you have been completely sidestepping the OP, who wondered how a logical view on life can be uplifting. This is clearly the realm of someone with a scientific background.
I guess this is why our arguments are different as science students always must prove themselves and their arguments, however sociology and philosophy students can just rely on quoting other people's work with having any kind of deep understanding. I find it surprizing that wich such logic you don't see that quoting is used by those students in a similar way you use axioms, laws and theorems. ok, now explain to me how these are three different things, especially axioms and laws. Then I'll take you seriously. On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote:
No wonder french managers and engineers are quite appreciated worldwide, as they were obligated to learn history, philosophy and geography until late. Unlike those english highs school kids who drop history when they're 15 and don't know what to answer when asked what the Shoah was.
Ugh, nationalism? gross... An axiom is something that is self evidently true, which you do not need to prove true. A theorem, on the other hand, is something that is proved from axioms. A simple example are Euclids postulates - the first five are Axioms, the remaining ones are theorems. A lemma is logically similar to a theorem, but normally considered of lesser importance, typically only used to prove a theorem. Law, however, is not a term in logic.
What you describe as an axiom I would scientifically describe as an observation. "Axiom" is often used in science to describe a theory which is beyond doubt, but an axiomatic approach to science is a very poor way of proceeding.
|
On June 27 2011 20:45 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 20:29 Sarmis wrote:On June 27 2011 20:25 deathly rat wrote:On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote:On June 27 2011 18:40 deathly rat wrote:
More over you have been completely sidestepping the OP, who wondered how a logical view on life can be uplifting. This is clearly the realm of someone with a scientific background.
I guess this is why our arguments are different as science students always must prove themselves and their arguments, however sociology and philosophy students can just rely on quoting other people's work with having any kind of deep understanding. I find it surprizing that wich such logic you don't see that quoting is used by those students in a similar way you use axioms, laws and theorems. ok, now explain to me how these are three different things, especially axioms and laws. Then I'll take you seriously. On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote:
No wonder french managers and engineers are quite appreciated worldwide, as they were obligated to learn history, philosophy and geography until late. Unlike those english highs school kids who drop history when they're 15 and don't know what to answer when asked what the Shoah was.
Ugh, nationalism? gross... An axiom is something that is self evidently true, which you do not need to prove true. A theorem, on the other hand, is something that is proved from axioms. A simple example are Euclids postulates - the first five are Axioms, the remaining ones are theorems. A lemma is logically similar to a theorem, but normally considered of lesser importance, typically only used to prove a theorem. Law, however, is not a term in logic. What you describe as an axiom I would scientifically describe as an observation. "Axiom" is often used in science to describe a theory which is beyond doubt, but an axiomatic approach to science is a very poor way of proceeding.
You are, quite simply, using the term incorrectly then.
|
On June 27 2011 20:48 Sarmis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 20:45 deathly rat wrote:On June 27 2011 20:29 Sarmis wrote:On June 27 2011 20:25 deathly rat wrote:On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote:On June 27 2011 18:40 deathly rat wrote:
More over you have been completely sidestepping the OP, who wondered how a logical view on life can be uplifting. This is clearly the realm of someone with a scientific background.
I guess this is why our arguments are different as science students always must prove themselves and their arguments, however sociology and philosophy students can just rely on quoting other people's work with having any kind of deep understanding. I find it surprizing that wich such logic you don't see that quoting is used by those students in a similar way you use axioms, laws and theorems. ok, now explain to me how these are three different things, especially axioms and laws. Then I'll take you seriously. On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote:
No wonder french managers and engineers are quite appreciated worldwide, as they were obligated to learn history, philosophy and geography until late. Unlike those english highs school kids who drop history when they're 15 and don't know what to answer when asked what the Shoah was.
Ugh, nationalism? gross... An axiom is something that is self evidently true, which you do not need to prove true. A theorem, on the other hand, is something that is proved from axioms. A simple example are Euclids postulates - the first five are Axioms, the remaining ones are theorems. A lemma is logically similar to a theorem, but normally considered of lesser importance, typically only used to prove a theorem. Law, however, is not a term in logic. What you describe as an axiom I would scientifically describe as an observation. "Axiom" is often used in science to describe a theory which is beyond doubt, but an axiomatic approach to science is a very poor way of proceeding. You are, quite simply, using the term incorrectly then.
well lets not get onto your description of a theorem then.
|
On June 27 2011 20:53 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 20:48 Sarmis wrote:On June 27 2011 20:45 deathly rat wrote:On June 27 2011 20:29 Sarmis wrote:On June 27 2011 20:25 deathly rat wrote:On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote:On June 27 2011 18:40 deathly rat wrote:
More over you have been completely sidestepping the OP, who wondered how a logical view on life can be uplifting. This is clearly the realm of someone with a scientific background.
I guess this is why our arguments are different as science students always must prove themselves and their arguments, however sociology and philosophy students can just rely on quoting other people's work with having any kind of deep understanding. I find it surprizing that wich such logic you don't see that quoting is used by those students in a similar way you use axioms, laws and theorems. ok, now explain to me how these are three different things, especially axioms and laws. Then I'll take you seriously. On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote:
No wonder french managers and engineers are quite appreciated worldwide, as they were obligated to learn history, philosophy and geography until late. Unlike those english highs school kids who drop history when they're 15 and don't know what to answer when asked what the Shoah was.
Ugh, nationalism? gross... An axiom is something that is self evidently true, which you do not need to prove true. A theorem, on the other hand, is something that is proved from axioms. A simple example are Euclids postulates - the first five are Axioms, the remaining ones are theorems. A lemma is logically similar to a theorem, but normally considered of lesser importance, typically only used to prove a theorem. Law, however, is not a term in logic. What you describe as an axiom I would scientifically describe as an observation. "Axiom" is often used in science to describe a theory which is beyond doubt, but an axiomatic approach to science is a very poor way of proceeding. You are, quite simply, using the term incorrectly then. well lets not get onto your description of a theorem then.
From Wikipedia: In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proven on the basis of previously established statements, such as other theorems, and previously accepted statements, such as axioms. The derivation of a theorem is often interpreted as a proof of the truth of the resulting expression, but different deductive systems can yield other interpretations, depending on the meanings of the derivation rules. Theorems have two components, called the hypotheses and the conclusions. The proof of a mathematical theorem is a logical argument demonstrating that the conclusions are a necessary consequence of the hypotheses, in the sense that if the hypotheses are true then the conclusions must also be true, without any further assumptions. The concept of a theorem is therefore fundamentally deductive, in contrast to the notion of a scientific theory, which is empirical.[2]
I will note that the philosophical version of a theorem is the same as a mathematical version (as they are, quite simply, the same thing, from logic)
|
On June 27 2011 20:25 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote:
No wonder french managers and engineers are quite appreciated worldwide, as they were obligated to learn history, philosophy and geography until late. Unlike those english highs school kids who drop history when they're 15 and don't know what to answer when asked what the Shoah was.
Ugh, nationalism? gross...
Forget about laws, the term was incorrect.
And FYI I'm Chilean, so this is hardly nationalism. I'm just talking about the french educative system. But maybe saying that France boards the Atlantic Sea and Germany doesn't is nationalism, too.
About your "observations", are you telling us that you don't have an axiomatic approach in general? Does this mean that you never base yourself on preexistent work? Does that mean that you can't even use Pythagoras theorem because this would be and axiomatic approach?
Let me doubt that you always start from scratch and empiric work, "observations".
|
when did we get onto maths? I feel like I've been hijacked.
On June 27 2011 20:57 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 20:25 deathly rat wrote:On June 27 2011 19:51 Kukaracha wrote:
No wonder french managers and engineers are quite appreciated worldwide, as they were obligated to learn history, philosophy and geography until late. Unlike those english highs school kids who drop history when they're 15 and don't know what to answer when asked what the Shoah was.
Ugh, nationalism? gross... Forget about laws, the term was incorrect. And FYI I'm Chilean, so this is hardly nationalism. I'm just talking about the french educative system. But maybe saying that France boards the Atlantic Sea and Germany doesn't is nationalism, too. About your "observations", are you telling us that you don't have an axiomatic approach in general? Does this mean that you never base yourself on preexistent work? Does that mean that you can't even use Pythagoras theorem because this would be and axiomatic approach? Let me doubt that you always start from scratch and empiric work, "observations".
Lets just say its important to keep checking back to make sure that after 3 or 4 steps of logic, that your conclusions still make sense of your first observations.
idc if you are nationalistic, i just find it gross and one step away from other kinds of predudice.
|
On June 27 2011 20:57 deathly rat wrote:
when did we get onto maths? I feel like I've been hijacked.
Clearly you should have studied some of the liberal arts and less chemistry, if you don't understand the link. Note that my edit of that post was a good two minutes before your reply, and immediately after my post was made, so I assume you had plenty of time to read the entire thing.
|
Isn't math science?
Or else, have you observed that the earth rotates around the North/South axis? Have you observed that the earth is a round object? Have you experimented it?
When you use the Coriolis force, do you always start by proving that the earth is round and rotates?
And if you want chemistry, have you verified that every information on the periodic table is accurate? I've never really done any chemistry and have a small interest for it, so excuse me if my examples are fairly limited.
|
On June 27 2011 21:02 Kukaracha wrote:
Isn't math science?
Or else, have you observed that the earth rotates around the North/South axis? Have you observed that the earth is a round object? Have you experimented it?
When you use the Coriolis force, do you always start by proving that the earth is round and rotates?
see above. The difference between maths and science is that maths is concerned with absolute proof, but there is no such thing in science. It's a different way of reasoning.
|
On June 27 2011 21:02 Kukaracha wrote:
Isn't math science?
Or else, have you observed that the earth rotates around the North/South axis? Have you observed that the earth is a round object? Have you experimented it?
When you use the Coriolis force, do you always start by proving that the earth is round and rotates?
And if you want chemistry, have you verified that every information on the periodic table is accurate? I've never really done any chemistry and have a small interest for it, so excuse me if my examples are fairly limited.
No. Math is not empirical.
|
you didnt mention Descartes at all - no First Meditations?
|
I've always considered Science to be the blending of math and philosophy. Anyone else find this?
|
On June 27 2011 21:08 rushz0rz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 21:02 Kukaracha wrote:
Isn't math science?
Or else, have you observed that the earth rotates around the North/South axis? Have you observed that the earth is a round object? Have you experimented it?
When you use the Coriolis force, do you always start by proving that the earth is round and rotates?
And if you want chemistry, have you verified that every information on the periodic table is accurate? I've never really done any chemistry and have a small interest for it, so excuse me if my examples are fairly limited.
No. Math is not empirical.
Math is an exact science.
And if you were saying that Maths does not need to prove the aformentioned elements, then there are axioms, therefore it's an axiomatic approach like any science that exists.
|
On June 27 2011 21:19 Roe wrote:
I've always considered Science to be the blending of math and philosophy. Anyone else find this?
Well, in a way. Aristotelian physics pretty much dominated the scene before Galileo and Newton so I guess philosophy and science do relate but the greek philosophies weren't evidence-based and their ideas were very different from modern theories even atomism is still something very different from the idea behind elementary physics. Mathematics also existed long before modern science.
If science or better physics is a blending of mathematics and philosophy then being good at both should make you an excellent physicist but that's not the case at all. I would prefer "related to" instead of "blending of".
|
On June 27 2011 16:03 Oreo7 wrote:
C. Life has no inherent meaning.
I think this is largely a language issue. Just because the impermanence of the universe robs it of ultimate meaning doesn't prevent you, your life and your actions from being meaningful. It is the temporary nature of existence which makes our daily actions important.
Gather ye rosebuds while ye may, for entropy will erase all labor when we stop.
|
On June 27 2011 21:19 Roe wrote:
I've always considered Science to be the blending of math and philosophy. Anyone else find this?
Well, let's throw math and philosophy in the good old Blendtec and see whether Science pops out!
|
On June 27 2011 22:47 nemo14 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 21:19 Roe wrote:
I've always considered Science to be the blending of math and philosophy. Anyone else find this? Well, let's throw math and philosophy in the good old Blendtec and see whether Science pops out!
that's what i did and i ended up with chemistry, what'd you get?
|
On June 27 2011 22:54 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 22:47 nemo14 wrote:On June 27 2011 21:19 Roe wrote:
I've always considered Science to be the blending of math and philosophy. Anyone else find this? Well, let's throw math and philosophy in the good old Blendtec and see whether Science pops out! that's what i did and i ended up with chemistry, what'd you get?
Stephen Hawking's legs!
|
I never understood how believing in god would give your life a satisfying meaning. If god existed and your only meaning was to please him, how would that be any better than not having any inherent meaning to your life? Ending up in a place for all eternity doesn't actually sound really nice.
I also find it strange when people think not disproving god somehow makes him real. When people say god doesn't exist, they actually mean there's no evidence to support his existance so there's absolutely no reason to believe he exists.
If you actually use pascals wager to justify your belief in god, here's something for you. I am actually god and if you don't send me 1000€ within a week, you will suffer twice as worse as you would in a christian view of hell and I will also rape your family. If you send me your money, all your wishes will come true. Let me know when have the money and I'll send you my bank info.
|
One thing I've learned from talking to religeous people is that belittling their beliefs is counter-productive. They just think you are arrogant and don't fully understand what they are trying to tell you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
