Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
you are making wild assumptions
Click to expand...
In what universe is directly quoting you making wild assumptions?

added:

Oh, nevermind I know now.

The same universe in which inductive reasoning based on observable phenomena is considered blind faith.

Carry on.
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
Lenas_sl said:
Scientific theories are not beliefs. They are assumptions based on studies and observations; they're our best guess at what is happening but can't yet prove. Scientists don't look at things as self evident, they just say, "this is our best guess." When people study the possibility of that guess, and they all agree that it fits logically, they say, "Yeah we agree that's the most probable solution."

Doesn't make it a belief, just means that they can't come up with anything better yet.
Click to expand...
This is a definition problem. And that's okay. I say, when one accepts an axiom and builds on it without proof of the axiom, that's belief in the axiom. If we want to term that something different that's okay. But the initial axiom is unproven and we "accept" or "believe" or say "that's self-evident" and then build on it.
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
hodj_sl said:
In what universe is directly quoting you making wild assumptions?

added:

Oh, nevermind I know now.

The same universe in which inductive reasoning based on observable phenomena is considered blind faith.

Carry on.
Click to expand...
I don't know how many times I need to state that inductive reasoning is not blind faith. I'll do it again though

Inductive reasoning isn't blind faith.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
Weaponsfree_sl said:
Certainly! Any axiom that claims itself as self-evident must be something one believes before building upon the axiom. The axiom is then, the criterion of truth. These axioms are things we choose--and of course, can change any time we so desire, to our credit.

The Axiom of pairing is a good example. The axiom of pairing is uncontroversial, and is widely accepted. It however, has no proof and is taken to be self-evident.

I of course accept the axiom of pairing. It seems common sense to me.

To hearken back to Sextus though, this criterion of truthshouldrequire its own proof, of which it has none, and even were it to, it itself would rely on a criterion of truth, which must be proved, ad infinitum. At some point one must believe a criterion as self-evident.
Click to expand...
What? The Axiom of Pairing most certainly has a proof. Take two sets, put them into a third set. Third set exists and its elements are the first two sets. Viola. Proven.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Weaponsfree_sl said:
This is a definition problem.
Click to expand...
Yes, the problem is that you've defined induction to mean something it isn't, which is exactly what I told you in the very first post I made in response to you.

Added:

See?

hodj_sl said:
To summarize, induction is moving from generalizations to specifics, while deduction is moving from broad generalizations to specific explanations.

Induction is something like Newton seeing the apple falling and inducing that the reason it falls is because some generally applicable universal (for the context of this discussion gravity doesn't hold absolutely universally but on planets it does for the most part) force is pulling the apple towards the ground. Deduction is noticing that everything touching the ground seems to be pulled back towards it, and determining that because of this fact, the apple falling from the tree will also move towards the ground. This is a very very fast example and probably isn't a perfect one, more a way to give you a picture.

Just as with terms like theory and hypothesis, these do not mean the same thing they might mean in the common every day use of the terms.
Click to expand...
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Weaponsfree_sl said:
I don't know how many times I need to state that inducting reasoning is not blind faith.
Click to expand...
You say it now, and yet you've been arguing this entire time that inductive reasoning is the intellectual equivalent of a religious belief in God, which is blind faith and unprovable.

Your actions speak louder than your words.

You are making the case that science and religion are compatible because both involve belief systems. That is, induction and blind faith are comparable. They are not.
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
hodj_sl said:
Yes, the problem is that you've defined induction to mean something it isn't, which is exactly what I told you in the very first post I made in response to you.

Added:

See?
Click to expand...
I still have not changed the definition of induction or defined it as something that it isn't. Remember the question? Does science employ induction? Yes. That's it.

Then you come in DON'T YOU DARE MAKE THIS ABOUT FAITH OR RELIGION

Okay man. We're not doing that. Thanks.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Weaponsfree_sl said:
I still have not changed the definition of induction or defined it as something that it isn't.
Click to expand...
Actually, that's exactly what you've done when you openly state, as you just have, that induction in science requires and implies belief.

It doesn't.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
Weaponsfree_sl said:
I still have not changed the definition of induction or defined it as something that it isn't. Remember the question? Does science employ induction? Yes. That's it.

Then you come in DON'T YOU DARE MAKE THIS ABOUT FAITH OR RELIGION

Okay man. We're not doing that. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Induction is proven in science. Not pulled out of its ass like in religion.
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
Lenas_sl said:
Not really, but okay.
Click to expand...
You're talking about theories. I'm not. I'm talking about axioms. You can't make a proof that begins with "The axiom of pairing is really a good guess," the proof would begin with "this is true because this is the application of the axiom of pairing, which is true" when the axiom has not been proven.
 
Lenas

Lenas

Trump's Staff
7,559
2,299
Weaponsfree_sl said:
You're talking about theories. I'm not. I'm talking about axioms. You can't make a proof that begins with "The axiom of pairing is really a good guess," the proof would begin with "this is true because this is the application of the axiom of pairing, which is true" when the axiom has not been proven.
Click to expand...
Scientific hypothesis and theory is exactly what has given birth to theassumptionsthat you're labeling axioms. They're not self-evident truths, they're conclusions reached after vast testing throughout multiple fields.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Weaponsfree_sl said:
WHAT!? Induction isn't proven at all you colossal idiot. Induction is a method of reasoning that sometimes yields invalid results! And I STILL am not talking about religion.
Click to expand...
Induction, again, takes the specific, and expands it to the general. It is in every way "proven" in that it is based on objective observation of phenomena through testing.

Which is all provable means in this context.

You should just go buy a dictionary and start reading bro. Definitions confuse you to no end.
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
Lenas_sl said:
Scientific hypothesis and theory is exactly what has given birth to theassumptionsthat you're labeling axioms. They're not self-evident truths, they're conclusions reached after vast testing throughout multiple fields.
Click to expand...
They are self evident truths. Here's the definition: "An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy." The scientific theroies themselves mustbegin somewhereself-evident. And also "As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning. Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis; the relative truth of an axiom is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other relative truths. "

And I'M labeling them axioms? What? They're used all the time and labeled as axioms by scientists.

And here's one for induction: "There is always a possibility, though, that the premises may be true while the conclusion is false, since there is not necessarily a logical relationship between premises and conclusion."
 
Lenas

Lenas

Trump's Staff
7,559
2,299
Please explain one scientific belief that is self-evident. Something that we believe where no other possibility could ever exist.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Weaponsfree_sl said:
And here's one for induction: "There is always a possibility, though, that the premises may be true while the conclusion is false, since there is not necessarily a logical relationship between premises and conclusion."
Click to expand...
This is not justification for your argument that induction requires belief.
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
Lenas_sl said:
Please explain one scientific belief that is self-evident. Something that we believe where no other possibility could ever exist.
Click to expand...
The parallel line postulate is believed to be self-evident and that no other possibility could exist: "It is true that, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, intersect on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles."

There are a TON of these.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_postulate

In geometry, the parallel postulate, also called Euclid's fifth postulate because it is the fifth postulate in Euclid's Elements, is a distinctive axiom in Euclidean geometry. It states that, in two-dimensional geometry:

If a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that sum to less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles.

Euclidean geometry is the study of geometry that satisfies all of Euclid's axioms, including the parallel postulate.A geometry where the parallel postulate does not hold is known as a non-Euclidean geometry. Geometry that is independent of Euclid's fifth postulate (i.e., only assumes the modern equivalent of the first four postulates) is known as absolute geometry (or, in other places known as neutral geometry).
Click to expand...
Only applicable when employing specifically Euclidean geometry. You're confusing a convention in mathematics with inductive reasoning in science.

Not the same.

Also, same article

Probably the best known equivalent of Euclid's parallel postulate is Playfair's axiom, named after the Scottish mathematician John Playfair, which states:
At most one line can be drawn through any point not on a given line parallel to the given line in a plane.[1]
This axiom is not logically equivalent to the Euclidean parallel postulate since there are geometries in which one is true and the other is not. However, in the presence of the remaining axioms which give Euclidean geometry, each of these can be used to prove the other, so they are equivalent in the context of absolute geometry.[2]
Click to expand...
And

For two thousand years, many attempts were made to prove the parallel postulate using Euclid's first four postulates. The main reason that such a proof was so highly sought after was that, unlike the first four postulates, the parallel postulate isn't self-evident.
Click to expand...
Parallel postulate is NOT self evident.

Your argument = nonsense.

Oh and it just continues to destroy your argument here

Where Khayy?m and Saccheri had attempted to prove Euclid's fifth by disproving the only possible alternatives, the nineteenth century finally saw mathematicians exploring those alternatives and discovering the logically consistent geometries which result. In 1829, Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky published an account of acute geometry in an obscure Russian journal (later re-published in 1840 in German). In 1831, J?nos Bolyai included, in a book by his father, an appendix describing acute geometry, which, doubtlessly, he had developed independently of Lobachevsky. Carl Friedrich Gauss had also studied the problem, but he did not publish any of his results. Upon hearing of Bolyai's results in a letter from Bolyai's father, Farkas Bolyai, Gauss stated:
"If I commenced by saying that I am unable to praise this work, you would certainly be surprised for a moment. But I cannot say otherwise. To praise it would be to praise myself. Indeed the whole contents of the work, the path taken by your son, the results to which he is led, coincide almost entirely with my meditations, which have occupied my mind partly for the last thirty or thirty-five years."[18]
The resulting geometries were later developed by Lobachevsky, Riemann and Poincar? into hyperbolic geometry (the acute case) and elliptic geometry (the obtuse case).The independence of the parallel postulate from Euclid's other axioms was finally demonstrated by Eugenio Beltrami in 1868.
Click to expand...
And boom goes the dynamite. Highlighted portion. It has been proven. Nothing self evident about it.
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
hodj_sl said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_postulate



Only applicable when employing specifically Euclidean geometry. You're confusing a convention in mathematics with inductive reasoning in science.

Not the same.
Click to expand...
No I am not confusing anything. Geometry is a branch of science and the question was posed, TO ME, to point out a single scientific belief that is self-evident. I did so.

Is your claim that there are no axioms in science? There are no self-evident starting points? And now you keep mentioning inductive reasoning, when please note, I did not tie belief to inductive reasoning. You keep doing so. Tuco asked, can you show a belief in science? Lenas asked, can I show something self-evident scientific belief? This is not in relation to inductive reasoning.

And holy shit,it was believed to beself-evident. Don't want to use the parallel postulate? USE ANY OF THE OTHER EUCLIDEAN ONES. They are the starting, self-evident points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.