Do you want "scientific proof"?

The scientific method has merit. Read some Richard Feynman and if you don't like it, then turn off your computer and go grow corn and live in a mud hut. You may not like Descartes but he started a good thing.

reply to post by Jiggyfly

Just stop!

No.

1/3 = .3333333333

This is wrong.

One third is a third of a whole.

.333333333 (Repeating forever) is *LESS* than a third of a whole (as is indicated by your math)

Therefore, the belief that 1/3 = .3333333(repeating) is the problem in your mathematical "Proof"

You have Failed, Have a nice day.

Point being, A = A is a definition.

Yes... a thing is itself.

That was my Proof.

Have a nice Day.

So please, drop the A = A so checkmate, I'm smart and you're dumb act.

It's not an act.

reply to post by theshepherd2

What is the matter with you?

Nothing... Whatsa matta with YOU?

I can perfectly understand a "debate " with the OP, but you have now begun "correcting" anyone who posts on this thread with an opinion contrary to your ULTIMATE CAPLOCK PROOF.

Do you not correct people when they are wrong?

The site's motto *IS* deny Ignorance, and that is exactly what I am doing.

This, too, wouldn't bother me except you have ever-so-conveniently forgotten to reply to Necrocharadon's post.

That's because it's irrelevant, as he misunderstood my proof.

And just to be clear, I don't actually believe you simply did not see the post. This is a post that you cannot argue with, so you have chosen to ignore it.

There is no reason to argue with it.... IT's not an argument against my Proof, so it needs no retort.

Normally I wouldn't even post an attack like this, but believe it or not, you're coming off as a troll.

Seems like you are doing the same, actually.

With all due respect.

Oh, I doubt that very much.

reply to post by kalisdad

your arguement is flawed in many ways...

No, it's not.

I will point out just 1...

You only think you will.

A = B^2

prove that wrong...

That's not even relevant.

100 years ago we had our known science and we believed them completely... then a new theory came along and changed things.

So, a thing is no longer itself then?

Is that what you are saying?

Your computer is a car, and your toothpaste is a dog?

Is that what you are saying?

science does in fact change

We are not debating whether science changes, we are debating whether anything in science can be proven.

what we believe today,

might turn out differently in the future

So, your car is going to morph into a dog then?

Or you are going to turn into a toilet?


You are stating that the FOUNDATION OF ALL LOGIC.... that a "Thing is itself" as expressed in the formula "A = A" is wrong.

This is quite arrogant.

Read this... you might learn something.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by kalisdad

while this is a true statement, as a person with partial red/green colorblindness, I know for a FACT that what he said about people seeing colors differently(ETA) is true.

So, you are saying that either the colors red or green are invisible to you?

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


Oh, so basically a typical ignorant "believer" ranting against science. Haven't heard that before Everything you said is silly and about as compelling as what you hear from an evangelist ranting about evolution. No one here said science has the answer (final truth) to everything, so don't put words in people's mouths.

The idea that you should just believe in stuff on this site just because you want to and just call it a day and that is somehow more valid than science and asking for evidence data etc before formulating an opinion is so sad. Unfortunately many people around here operate like that and are perfectly willing to believe any story/conspiracy/claim just from one anonymous person/youtube video claiming it's true. Sorry but no, an opinion, based on little or nothing but what you feel or want to be true is nowhere near as valid or valuable as opinions based on extensive, testable evidence/data/experimentation/expertise etc
O well, have fun in your dream world, done with this stupid thread.

Why make your creations autonomous, free-thinking beings, endowed with logic, reason and a desire to learn, when all you expect them to be are blinkered lemmings?

Why create people if you want sheep?


Religion: Bastion of the brainless.

Originally posted by darkest4
reply to post by ErroneousDylan

 

Oh, so basically a typical ignorant "believer" ranting against science. Haven't heard that before

Everything you said is silly and about as compelling as what you hear from an evangelist ranting about evolution. No one here said science has the answer (final truth) to everything, so don't put words in people's mouths.

The idea that you should just believe in stuff on this site just because you want to and just call it a day and that is somehow more valid than science and asking for evidence data etc before formulating an opinion is so sad. Unfortunately many people around here operate like that and are perfectly willing to believe any story/conspiracy/claim just from one anonymous person/youtube video claiming it's true. Sorry but no, an opinion, based on little or nothing but what you feel or want to be true is nowhere near as valid or valuable as opinions based on extensive, testable evidence/data/experimentation/expertise etc
O well, have fun in your dream world, done with this stupid thread.

edit on 13-1-2012 by darkest4 because: (no reason given)

I'm glad we can agree on that.

Just had a conversation about this very idea with my dad the other day. He doesn't seem to get it.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by kalisdad

 

your arguement is flawed in many ways...

No, it's not.

I will point out just 1...

You only think you will.

A = B^2
prove that wrong...

That's not even relevant.

100 years ago we had our known science and we believed them completely... then a new theory came along and changed things.

So, a thing is no longer itself then?
Is that what you are saying?
Your computer is a car, and your toothpaste is a dog?
Is that what you are saying?

science does in fact change

We are not debating whether science changes, we are debating whether anything in science can be proven.

what we believe today,
might turn out differently in the future

So, your car is going to morph into a dog then?
Or you are going to turn into a toilet?

You are stating that the FOUNDATION OF ALL LOGIC.... that a "Thing is itself" as expressed in the formula "A = A" is wrong.
This is quite arrogant.
Read this... you might learn something.
en.wikipedia.org...
reply to post by kalisdad

 

while this is a true statement, as a person with partial red/green colorblindness, I know for a FACT that what he said about people seeing colors differently(ETA) is true.

So, you are saying that either the colors red or green are invisible to you?

ok, lets equate your A=A statement to the arguement of the geocentric model of the universe...

you are clinging to the fact that A=the universe revolves around Earth

this is fact to you and everyone agrees

suddenly someone comes along and points out that infact A= Earth revolves around the sun.

now, what was FACT for 1500 years is wrong and you are left with your foot in your mouth. this is the relevence of my statement that A=B^2

perhaps in simpler terms...
you find a nice shiney black rock. you you know for a fact that it is rock, logic tells you this as you can compare it to all the other rocks around you. then one day someone comes along and thru an accident find that this rock burns quite well and suddenly its not just a rock, but it is in fact coal.

A=A
rock=rock

A=B^2
rock=coal

you are STUCK on the fact that you are defining somethings as equivically one thing, when you have NO clue what future theories my bring that could forever change the definition of everything we know and believe to be true today.

--

also, when someone is colorblind, they don't have invisible colors... I see reds and greens. its more about shadings. what you might percieve as a redish color, I see as more a brown. BUT that brown color I can usually identify it as red because when I look at it I see the color and was told it was red, just like you were. this is how we can see two different spectrums of the color wavelenghts, but both recognize them as being the same color.
however, if you were to take a redish colored item and put it next to a brownish colored item, you would clearly see that they were different, I would not. to me they would appear to be the exact same color.

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

further, the parameters typically change only when it is necessary and useful (re: my above post) to do so.

therefore, if the usefulness of an idea cannot be established, the idea has fundamentally zero merit.

Usefulness to whom? How many people have to agree that an idea is "useful" in order for it to have more merit than zero? Does it matter who the people are? Can a single individual declare an idea useful to himself and thereby bestow merit upon it, even if nobody agrees with him?

reply to post by kalisdad

ok, lets equate your A=A statement to the arguement of the geocentric model of the universe...

Why?

Are you equating my statement to the dis-proven geocentric model of the universe because you believe that it will make my argument seem weak by doing so?

How about I equate your entire argument to the Nazi Eugenics movement?

How about that?

you are clinging to the fact that A=the universe revolves around Earth

No, I am not... YOU are stating this, and this is called a Straw-Man Argument.

You are not even being subtle about it anymore, you are just straight up SLANDERING my position with false bull[snip]

Stop it.

this is fact to you and everyone agrees

No, This is your Perspective on the matter, that happens to be wrong.

suddenly someone comes along and points out that infact A= Earth revolves around the sun.

Suddenly, someone comes along and tells you that Your desire to cleanse the earth of all minorities makes you a Racist.

You should really look into that.

now, what was FACT for 1500 years is wrong and you are left with your foot in your mouth. this is the relevence of my statement that A=B^2

You don't know how to argue at all, apparently.

perhaps in simpler terms...

You can't really get much more simple than equating your opponents position to geocentricism...

I mean, honestly... are you even TRYING to debate, or are you just going to call me a baby killer next?


Seriously...

also, when someone is colorblind, they don't have invisible colors... I see reds and greens. its more about shadings. what you might percieve as a redish color, I see as more a brown.

So, are you saying that the fact that you don't perceive the color red as most people Do, means that the wavelength of light is somehow different in the vicinity surrounding your head?

Look, I'm not going to bother discussing this or anything else with you, because it is clear to me that you are completely unaware of how to argue properly, or logically.

So, have a nice day, and you should look into that whole "Being wrong" thing.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by kalisdad

 

ok, lets equate your A=A statement to the arguement of the geocentric model of the universe...

Why?

Are you equating my statement to the dis-proven geocentric model of the universe because you believe that it will make my argument seem weak by doing so?.

your arguement is weak from my perspective, bases soley on the fact that everything we think we know to be true today could be dis-proven in the future just as the geocentric model was dis-proven in the past.

you can quote all the laws and theories you want to prove your point. fact is, we don't know with 100% certainty if these we be held true in the future.

the OP states,

You could have 1000's of pages released saying "this is true" or you could have One page released saying "this is true" but neither one will prove that the theory is final.

and I am simply agreeing with that statement

reply to post by kalisdad

your arguement is weak from my perspective, bases soley on the fact that everything we think we know to be true today could be dis-proven in the future just as the geocentric model was dis-proven in the past.

We are talking about whether A is A.

Your continued refusal to admit that A is A, is quite transparent.

You cannot successfully argue against this point, because it is TRUTH.

you can quote all the laws and theories you want to prove your point. fact is, we don't know with 100% certainty if these we be held true in the future.

Yes, we Do.

and I am simply agreeing with that statement

A is A

You cannot disprove this, because it is Truth.

A will Always be A, you cannot debate this, or diminish the overwhelming significance of this fact.

A is A

IT is Proven.

You are Wrong.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

esteemed authorities have been wrong many times in the history of science. In the long run, no scientist, however famous or highly placed, is empowered to decide for other scientists what is true, for none are believed by other scientists to have special access to the truth. There are no preestablished conclusions that scientists must reach on the basis of their investigations.

www.project2061.org... 3D1%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D6%26ved%3D0CE4QFjAF%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww%2Eproject2061%2Eorg%252Ftools%252Fsfaaol%252Fchap1%2Ehtm%26ei%3D3%5FAQT%5 F6qIejd0QH5huS%2DAw%26usg%3DAFQjCNFBaX9uZ7iz3%2Do%5F2MchEaDOlgevhQ%26sig2%3DcZYdw4ARYSasRXySenycgg&txtURIOld=%2Ftools%2Fsfaaol%2Fchap1%2Ehtm

There are also “non-classical” propositional logics in which such possibilities as (i) a proposition’s having a truth-value other than truth or falsity, (ii) a proposition’s having an indeterminate truth-value or lacking a truth-value altogether, and sometimes even (iii) a proposition’s being both true and false, are considered.

www.iep.utm.edu...

In his seminal paper "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," the logician and philosopher W.V. Quine argued that all beliefs are in principle subject to revision in the face of empirical data, including the so-called analytic propositions. Thus the laws of logic, being paradigmatic cases of analytic propositions, are not immune to revision.

en.wikipedia.org...

Your continued refusal to admit that A is A, is quite transparent.

your continued refusal to accept that our understanding of the universe may change in the future is quite sad...

I at least accept that A in fact may not always be A

this confirms to logic, analytical proposition, and the nature of science

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Originally posted by Kalisdad
you can quote all the laws and theories you want to prove your point. fact is, we don't know with 100% certainty if these we be held true in the future.

Yes, we Do.

sorry, I can't recall ever going ad hominem on anyone in the time I have been on ATS, but this is single handedly the MOST ignorant statement I have ever heard anyone say in my 36 years of life...

WOW!

this just goes to show the blind faith mindset that I spoke of earlier tonight is alive and well...

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by kalisdad

 

your arguement is weak from my perspective, bases soley on the fact that everything we think we know to be true today could be dis-proven in the future just as the geocentric model was dis-proven in the past.

We are talking about whether A is A.

Your continued refusal to admit that A is A, is quite transparent.

You cannot successfully argue against this point, because it is TRUTH.

you can quote all the laws and theories you want to prove your point. fact is, we don't know with 100% certainty if these we be held true in the future.

Yes, we Do.

and I am simply agreeing with that statement

A is A

You cannot disprove this, because it is Truth.

A will Always be A, you cannot debate this, or diminish the overwhelming significance of this fact.

A is A

IT is Proven.

You are Wrong.

The Axiom of Equality you keep posting is still mathematical logic. It is not a scientific theory. Even people posting math to dispute your axiom are derailing the thread.

As was stated in the OP, mathematics and logic (or mathematical logic) can, of course, have an absolute truthful result. I agree with that and the axiom A = A, but it has no place in this thread.

Mathematical logic does not equal science.

The problem with an axiom in relation to science is that you are dealing with numbers and symbols of a certain language that have set, absolute values. Science, on the other hand, is not dealing with set, absolute values.

If you are trying to compare the mathematical axiom of equality to science, then the only proof you can conclude would be that of semantic value.

You could say that "rock = rock" where you would be applying the reflexive axiom to science but we know that isn't true, unless you are comparing the chain of characters "rock" to itself.

The double-slit experiment in quantum physics shows that, upon observation, particles will change accordingly. This would say that reality really is subjective, as opposed to objective, since everything in the Universe is made up of these particles.

Therefore, A = A could be, in fact, truthful for your reality, but to claim that it is an absolute truth universally, is incorrect.

In any regard, it is still an equation of mathematical logic. Not science.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by ErroneousDylan

 

You do realize that the term "scientific proof" is some what a form of oxymora, right?

And how do you mean that, exactly?

Do you mean that Knowledge and Proof are mutually exclusive?

Is that really your perspective on the matter? Because I can assure you that you are wrong.


A = A

There, Your entire thread has been rendered meaningless by 3 characters.

Have fun being Ignorant.

you do know that in other languages an A is completely different. like greek

A = 6

now i have proven you wrong.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


agreed reminds me of my first post on ats which wasnt very long ago www.abovetopsecret.com...

lol pretty sad i know


and inside was this grand gem in a comment



good stuff, love your post star and flag,

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


He's fighting tool and nail to keep his one point alive....

A=A is the root of the Law of Identity, which is one of the 3 classic Laws of Thought, the foundation of scholastic logic

all the while, he fails to acknowledge that this whole thread is about science not using logic to function. more so the fact that a large portion of theoretical physics uses non-classic logic to postulate their ideas.... they literally make things up.

half the stuff these theoretical physics are talking about have not and never will be part of our observable universe/reality and they know this. its all a bunch of mind games the lke to play with each other

Originally posted by N3v3rmor3
reply to post by ErroneousDylan

 

agreed

reminds me of my first post on ats which wasnt very long ago

www.abovetopsecret.com...

lol pretty sad i know

and inside was this grand gem in a comment

good stuff, love your post star and flag,

Thank you for the very kind words and for sharing this video with me =) I am glad you have enjoyed the thread.

The object of science is to provide a tenable explanation for the occurrence of a specific phenomena. Faith/belief on the other hand is a manifestation of a pre-conceived bias..like god for example..The very purpose of science is to circumvent the nature of this bias by way of drawing observational inferences through a process of ratiocination and then arrive at a conclusion.... does a systematic body of knowledge evolve?yes it does.....if we were to say that a specific answer is a finality then that would insinuate a bias. So science does not give you the ultimate answer but instead offers the best possible explanation.

Originally posted by Leonardo01
The object of science is to provide a tenable explanation for the occurrence of a specific phenomena. Faith/belief on the other hand is a manifestation of a pre-conceived bias..like god for example..The very purpose of science is to circumvent the nature of this bias by way of drawing observational inferences through a process of ratiocination and then arrive at a conclusion.... does a systematic body of knowledge evolve?yes it does.....if we were to say that a specific answer is a finality then that would insinuate a bias. So science does not give you the ultimate answer but instead offers the best possible explanation.

edit on 13-1-2012 by Leonardo01 because: prose

Very nicely said.