Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Weaponsfree_sl said:

No I am not confusing anything.

Click to expand...

But you are, and I've quoted more than enough to prove it.

Not only is your assertion that parallel postulate is self evident disproven, but also your claim that it is unproven has also been refuted on its face.

it was believed to be self-evident

Click to expand...

And yet it wasn't, and was in fact proven in the 1800s.

Its time to put the keyboard down, Weapon, you're not doing yourself any favors here.

Weaponsfree_sl said:

The parallel postulate was used as an axiom for all the time it wasn't proved--and after it was, those proofs themselves RELY ON OTHER AXIOMS WHICH ARE THEMSELVES UNPROVEN.

Click to expand...

Except not.

Weaponsfree_sl said:

Oh those proofs didn't use axioms? Really now. What was the starting point of reasoning then?

Click to expand...

No, your assertion is that they rely on unproven axioms. This is not the case.

No, we just need Weapon here to stop being such a blithering imbecile incapable of admitting when he's been proven resoundingly incorrect on a subject, not just by me, but by multiple people.

All I've tried to do this whole time is convince him his definition of induction in science is based on a false premise and a bad definition.

I don't think anything beyond that your assertions have been proven foundless thus far and that to continue to argue based on the premises you set forth is a worthless proposition because you yourself don't comprehend what you are saying.

Your argument at this point boils down to "This one postulate that went unproven for a long time, but was eventually proven, is really just faith based belief, because some proof that it relied upon to found its proof might have been unproven." I don't know, because I don't care. I'm just tired of you claiming that because X has the characteristics of Y that all Z must also share said characteristics, which is not the case.

Also its been shown that your understanding of the term axiom in this discussion is blatantly flawed.

Here's what I read when I look up the term axiom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

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.[1] The word comes from the Greek ?????? 'that which is thought worthy or fit,' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'[2][3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning.[4] 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.No explicit view regarding the absolute truth of axioms is ever taken in the context of modern mathematics, as such a thing is considered to be an irrelevant and impossible contradiction in terms.

In mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" and "non-logical axioms". Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be true within the system of logic they define (e.g., (A and B) implies A), while non-logical axioms (e.g., a + b = b + a) are actually defining properties for the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic).When used in the latter sense, "axiom," "postulate", and "assumption" may be used interchangeably.In general, a non-logical axiom is not a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in deduction to build a mathematical theory.As modern mathematics admits multiple, equally "true" systems of logic, precisely the same thing must be said for logical axioms - they both define and are specific to the particular system of logic that is being invoked.To axiomatize a system of knowledge is to show that its claims can be derived from a small, well-understood set of sentences (the axioms). There are typically multiple ways to axiomatize a given mathematical domain.

In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Within the system they define, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow otherwise they would be classified as theorems. However, an axiom in one system may be a theorem in another, and vice versa.

Click to expand...

So yeah. You're cherry picking your definition of axiom, and then distorting what it actually means.

Thanks for playing

Oh another, just for shits and giggle

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/axiom

ax?i?om [ak-see-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2.
a universally accepted principle or rule.
3.
Logic, Mathematics . a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

Click to expand...

See that last one? A proposition that is assumed without proof FOR THE SAKE OF STUDYING the consequences that follow from it.

No belief is implicit or explicit in this definition. Its an assumption made merely for the sake of experimentation. You are trying to conflate mathematical definition of axiom with the first definition. This is why you are wrong.

Weaponsfree_sl said:

Except not. It's not what I've done

Click to expand...

Funny how everything you just typed, I just refuted.

Let me quote it for you again.

3.
Logic, Mathematics . a proposition that isassumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequencesthat follow from it.

Click to expand...

Assumption for the purposes of intellectual pursuit =/= belief

Your claim is that axioms by definition imply belief. They don't. Especially not in mathematics.

Thanks for playing.

Anyway, let's get this puppy back on track with a really awesome creepy cool example of homoplasy

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...edelic-crisis/

A fish with very human like teeth because of their omnivorous diet

It really is one creepy fish.

Apparently if you eat its cousin species, you have a three day long intense trip, which sounds like something that would be interesting to try once.