Join TSR now and chat with students like youSign up now

What does STEM stand for? Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ennahaspatience)
    Dont lie
    specify what part of the post you're referring to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Actually the opposite

    Apart from Godel; but his ontological argument has a shakey axiom in it, so I could make the argument that he tried philosophy and failed, and then I would have to make the argument that pretty much EVERY philosopher/logician/mathematician who tried philosophy failed.

    Because philosophy is just so goddam alpha nobody can even do it right.


    Lol, you make me chuckle. Wittgenstein and Kripke both started off and still do this day, (in regards to Kripke) are logicians from a mathematical background (Wittgenstein specialized in mathematical logic). Are you saying you're smarter than them? And you're trying to refute Godel's ontological proof by insinuating there's a 'shaky axiom'? Make it patent.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    specify what part of the post you're referring to.
    Social sciences are STEM. NOPE.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zakee)
    Lol, you make me chuckle. Wittgenstein and Kripke both started off and still do this day, (in regards to Kripke) are logicians from a mathematical background (Wittgenstein specialized in mathematical logic). Are you saying you're smarter than them? And you're trying to refute Godel's ontological proof by insinuating there's a 'shaky axiom'? Make it patent.
    Where I have even implied that I'm smarter than these people? And if you look at my later post, you'll see I admitted that I was not prepared to follow through the mere hunch I got frm looking at it that there was an unsound axiom.

    Assuming you don't take kindly to the insinuation that Godel's argument could be wrong (based on your condescending tone), are you a deist, or a theist?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ennahaspatience)
    Social sciences are STEM. NOPE.
    STEM includes science, therefore all sciences must be included in STEM. Social sciences are by definition sciences, therefore social sciences must be STEM.

    You're denying a tautology here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Where I have even implied that I'm smarter than these people? And if you look at my later post, you'll see I admitted that I was not prepared to follow through the mere hunch I got frm looking at it that there was an incorrect axiom.

    Assuming you don't take kindly to the insinuation that Godel's argument could be wrong (based on your condescending tone), are you a deist, or a theist?

    I'm an atheist; I'm God.

    Well, I assumed you were smarter than them, as you had a "hunch" that Godel's proof may be spurious some where. I guess that's the difference between Mathematicians and other people: they don't have hunches, they know what they know and what they don't know. They don't pretend to have mercurial hunches.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    STEM includes science, therefore all sciences must be included in STEM. Social sciences are by definition sciences, therefore social sciences must be STEM.

    You're denying a tautology here.
    It is debateable whether social sciences are science. But I really don't think they are,

    Robbie and Dragonborn will not be happy about this
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zakee)
    I'm an atheist; I'm God.

    Well, I assumed you were smarter than them, as you had a "hunch" that Godel's proof may be spurious some where. I guess that's the difference between Mathematicians and other people: they don't have hunches, they know what they know and what they don't know. They don't pretend to have mercurial hunches.
    Yeah, I looked at an axiom, thought it looked a bit odd, but didn't go about proving it. A "hunch" seems to be an adequate term there. I do not see why you have a problem with that.

    You also seem to have made a logical error where you assume that if I were to point out a flaw in someone's argument, I would automatically be smarter than they were?



    Out of interest, can you point out the flaw in the argument, since you're an atheist, and, I'm guessing, don't like to rely on " mercurial hunches"?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Yeah, I looked at an axiom, thought it looked a bit odd, but didn't go about proving it. A "hunch" seems to be an adequate term there. I do not see why you have a problem with that.

    You also seem to have made a logical error where you assume that if I were to point out a flaw in someone's argument, I would automatically be smarter than they were?



    Out of interest, can you point out the flaw in the argument, since you're an atheist, and, I'm guessing, don't like to rely on " mercurial hunches"?

    I didn't make a logical error. You said based on a "hunch" you found something wrong with his proof. You said it in such a carefree manner that it seemed like that's the norm for you. To disprove theories of Godel, Kant and Newton easily. The way you portrayed yourself as as the great polymath of our age.

    Btw, I'm not an atheist. You don't realize that this is all a joke. You're too blinded by hubris to see that I'm what they refer to as the entity sojourning under the bridge: a troll.

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ennahaspatience)
    It is debateable whether social sciences are science. But I really don't think they are,

    Robbie and Dragonborn will not be happy about this
    They're not natural sciences, but science isn't defined by whether or not a field conforms to the definition of a natural science.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zakee)
    I didn't make a logical error. You said based on a "hunch" you found something wrong with his proof.
    Actually, I didn't, I said I had a hunch there was something wrong, not that I thought there was something wrong based on a hunch.

    You said it in such a carefree manner that it seemed like that's the norm for you. To disprove theories of Godel, Kant and Newton easily.
    Actually I am one of the few people who doesn't dismiss the ontological argument. Any notion of authority on the matter was not my intention.


    The way you portrayed yourself as as the great polymath of our age.
    As above, not my intention.

    Btw, I'm not an atheist.
    That's a shame, I was looking forward to a technical discussion on why the argument was flawed.


    You don't realize that this is all a joke. You're too blinded by hubris to see that I'm what they refer to as the entity sojourning under the bridge: a troll.
    Well, that was subtle trolling; I applaud you. You were rude and condescending, making me react, but it seemed to come from a position of at least perceived authority. Well done. Weak ending though; you stopped it when I began to question you. That brings it down to 7/10.

    Also, it wasn't hubris that drove me, it was the fear that I had said something very stupid indeed, and that you were about to point it out, while at the same time knowing full well that I had not committed to any statement that would put me in danger of doing that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    a thread on STEM has now turned into a philosophy debate

    damn social scientists
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Hey, I'm just repeating what I heard.


    Is that a level maths, or a level econ?
    A Level maths
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabster)
    A Level maths
    Well that's a reasonable amount of maths.... I wouldn't have thought biology contained much more maths than that?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    a thread on STEM has now turned into a philosophy debate

    damn social scientists
    bro, do you even exist?



    :cool:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    bro, do you even exist?



    :cool:
    that's more deep then ur mums vajayjay
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Well that's a reasonable amount of maths.... I wouldn't have thought biology contained much more maths than that?
    It doesn't.. Biology contains less.

    I don't rate Biology in any way.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Yeah, I looked at an axiom, thought it looked a bit odd, but didn't go about proving it. A "hunch" seems to be an adequate term there. I do not see why you have a problem with that.

    You also seem to have made a logical error where you assume that if I were to point out a flaw in someone's argument, I would automatically be smarter than they were?
    You can't prove or disprove axioms...

    Which axiom are you talking about in particular?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    that's more deep then ur mums vajayjay
    That was a good philosophical allusion and you had to ruin it and make it about sex

    Unfortunately, despite my efforts on this thread, a philosophical discussion has not yet arisen proper
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabster)
    You can't prove or disprove axioms...

    Which axiom are you talking about in particular?
    Absolutely; I used the wrong word. Unsound, I should have said. His proof is obviously valid.

    I'm looking back over it...I specifically remember looking at one of the axioms and thinking "hmm, odd..", but my tired mind, rightly or wrongly, now cannot see an obvious counter to any of them:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%F6del...ological_proof

    This is the argument:

    • Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
    • Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
    • Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified


    • Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
    • Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
    • Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
    • Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
    • Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property

    Axiom 1 assumes that it is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel comments that "Positive means positive in the moral aestheticsense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)." (Gödel 1995). Axioms 2, 3 and 4 can be summarized by saying that positive properties form a principal ultrafilter.
    From these axioms and definitions and a few other axioms from modal logic, the following theorems can be proved:

    • Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
    • Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.
    • Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
    • Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

    Symbolically:
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.