# How to stop people doing pointless degreesWatch

Announcements
This discussion is closed.
4 years ago
#141
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Physics or some spin off

I think you will find physicists appreciate maths.

Plato can waffle on as much as he like about particles or what is the smallest thing. Means nothing. What can seem logical to humans with their human perspective means nothing if oyu can not objectively test it./
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying we shouldn't trust logic? Whether particiles are the smallest thing has NOTHING to do with logic. Plato was writing before Aristotle invented logic. We can "prove" the axioms of logic because conform to natural phenomena, that's good enough for any human knowledge. And then you can prove more and more based on that. Also not sure why you'd think logic can't be trusted but maths can.
0
4 years ago
#142
(Original post by KingStannis)
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying we shouldn't trust logic? Whether particiles are the smallest thing has NOTHING to do with logic. Plato was writing before Aristotle invented logic. We can "prove" the axioms of logic because conform to natural phenomena,that's good enough for any human knowledge. And then you can prove more and more based on that. Also not sure why you'd think logic can't be trusted but maths can.
Well we can make models that let us predict stuff to some degree of accuracy. Doesn't mean the maths logic is fundamentally correct
0
4 years ago
#143
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Well we can make models that let us predict stuff to some degree of accuracy. Doesn't mean the maths logic is fundamentally correct
It IS correct, in that when you define a system that says X is Y as being true, X = Y is true in that system. If we have every reason to think that the system itself conforms to reality, then there's no reason to deny the truth of X=Y. You just can't collect every axiom and theory there is in a set and try to base its set on that becuase it won't be either complete or consistent.

But if you deny maths then that's your science gone, sicne without maths science is just looking at things and guessing.
0
4 years ago
#144
(Original post by KingStannis)
It IS correct, in that when you define a system that says X is Y as being true, X = Y is true in that system. If we have every reason to think that the system itself conforms to reality, then there's no reason to deny the truth of X=Y. You just can't collect every axiom and theory there is in a set and try to base its set on that becuase it won't be either complete or consistent.

But if you deny maths then that's your science gone, sicne without maths science is just looking at things and guessing.
Maths is useful. But I am skeptical of how good a grip we have on things.
0
4 years ago
#145
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Maths is useful. But I am skeptical of how good a grip we have on things.
Well if it was wrong then how come it's useful?
0
4 years ago
#146
(Original post by KingStannis)
Well if it was wrong then how come it's useful?
useful =/= fundamentally correct

it's like at the core philosophy of how science works.

You can never prove anything with 100% accuracy. You can however prove something is wrong with 100% accuracy. As apposed to deciding god exists and then using that as your starting point of your entirety of thinking which is held up by a dishonest platform. lol
0
4 years ago
#147
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
useful =/= fundamentally correct

it's like at the core philosophy of how science works.

You can never prove anything with 100% accuracy. You can however prove something is wrong with 100% accuracy. As apposed to deciding god exists and then using that as your starting point of your entirety of thinking which is held up by a dishonest platform. lol
You can prove an argument valid with 100% accuracy, it just relies on axioms.

If 1 + 3 = 8, then G is true.

1 + 3= 8

Therefore, G is true.

Can you not see how, assuming the law of non contradiction, the is 100% provable?
0
4 years ago
#148
(Original post by KingStannis)
You can prove an argument valid with 100% accuracy, it just relies on axioms.

If 1 + 3 = 8, then G is true.

1 + 3= 8

Therefore, G is true.

Can you not see how, assuming the law of non contradiction, the is 100% provable?
that little argument was made by your monkey brain and all its in built limitations.

G= god

So by stating "god exists"

That means god exists?
0
4 years ago
#149
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
that little argument was made by your monkey brain and all its in built limitations.
My brain doesn't matter, what matters is that it is valid if you assume an axiom. Its validity has nothing to do with my brain.
0
4 years ago
#150
(Original post by KingStannis)
My brain doesn't matter, what matters is that it is valid if you assume an axiom. Its validity has nothing to do with my brain.
But your brain is coming up with all this crap. Your monkey brain is at the heart of it all , the same brain that has been shaped to help you eat, **** and sleep etc. Not understand quantum mechanics.

So you think you saying "god exists" as some kind of axiom ( I don't know what that means) means he exists and that is some how some kind of legit philosophical position to take that deserves respect from scientists?
0
4 years ago
#151
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
But your brain is coming up with all this crap.
And it conforms to reality. That's intuition backed up by sensory experience. And maybe this is all an illusion etc but we can occams razor this away.

Also, you realise you're argument applies to itself, and therefore the system you're describing "All human knowledge is unknowable" is inconsistent because it applies to your own statement, but your statement needs to be true for it to apply to your own statement. So to make your argument you need to assume you're an exception. And that is a nice metaphor for godel's incompleteness theorems.
0
4 years ago
#152
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
But your brain is coming up with all this crap. Your monkey brain is at the heart of it all , the same brain that has been shaped to help you eat, **** and sleep etc. Not understand quantum mechanics.

So you think you saying "god exists" as some kind of axiom ( I don't know what that means) means he exists and that is some how some kind of legit philosophical position to take that deserves respect from scientists?
What? No, I'm saying that if you assume an axiom is true, then deduce something from it, then that must also be true. But that makes a valid argument, not a "true" one. The philosopher's job is both to decuce conclusions from assumptions AND to figure out which facts to use as assumptions *scientists help here).
0
4 years ago
#153
(Original post by KingStannis)
And it conforms to reality.
You can only say that if you can some how test it. What seems to be reality from our monkey perspective is not necessarily what reality actually is. And that reality is only really our shared reality built up from observation. Like we can all agree the colour red has some objective measurable quality like it's wavelength. But we can not agree what "red" looks like, what if it all looks different to different people?

Even us testing it may still not be good enough. BUT, and this a big but. If we can make models that can be tested in their ability to predict stuff and get it right to a degree, then their is some truth even whilst acknowledging there is probbaly a hell of a lot wring with it.

Just stating "1+3 = 8 then G = true (god) 1+3=8 so god must exist" is such utter rubbish that whilst makes sense in the sense that out brains made it logical in our minds. It doesn't at all mean that is reality, all you have done is create your own fake reality based on what your brain is capable of, which is largely dictated by evolution. It doesn't mean god exists. You can't just arrogantly assume something is true and then use that as the bases of of your philosophical thinking, assuming that you can assume it is true unless it is proven wrong. You have to assume everything isn't true (well not fact anyway) until proven otherwise.
0
4 years ago
#154
(Original post by KingStannis)
What? No, I'm saying that if you assume an axiom is true, then deduce something from it, then that must also be true. But that makes a valid argument, not a "true" one. The philosopher's job is both to decuce conclusions from assumptions AND to figure out which facts to use as assumptions *scientists help here).
Not if your axiom is false or unknowable/unprovable.

Again back with the god thing. Sure you can run some kind of simulation in your monkey mind that if God did exist then the rest logically follows. But it doesn't matter how complex or logically sound the entirety of your philosophy is, if it is all based on something plucked out of thin air, like decided god exists. It's all based on a terrible axiom that has no grounding in reality. From a physics perspective, it's about testing your axiom to reality. F=ma is an axiom. You can use that base to build up a load of stuff. But you can test that axiom, you can graph the motion of a falling object at get that axiom. You can make loads of new equations that can predict a hole load of stuff. But decide that god exists. How do you test it? Stuff still happens whether god exists or not in your head.
0
4 years ago
#155
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
You can only say that if you can some how test it. What seems to be reality from our monkey perspective is not necessarily what reality actually is.

Even us testing it may still not be good enough. BUT, and this a big but. If we can make models that can be tested in their ability to predict stuff and get it right to a degree, then their is some truth even whilst acknowledging there is probbaly a hell of a lot wring with it.

Just stating "1+3 = 8 then G = true (god) 1+3=8 so god must exist" is such utter rubbish that whilst makes sense in the sense that out brains made it logical in our minds. It doesn't at all mean that is reality, all you have done is create your own fake reality based on what your brain is capable of, which is largely dictated by evolution. It doesn't mean god exists. You can't just arrogantly assume something is true and then use that as the bases of of your philosophical thinking, assuming that you can assume it is true unless it is proven wrong. You have to assume everything isn't true (well not fact anyway) until proven otherwise.
I'm not saying that example is true. That's an example of how an argument can be formally valid, and the fact that it is formally valid is true given the assumptions used to prove it. EVEN IF those assumptions are false. EVEN IF the whole of logic is just constructed by our monkey brains, within in the system our monkey brains produced, it is true that the system is valid.

The point is is that the assumptions we do you DO conform to reality, and that is why we trust them.

Furthermore, your whole argument here relies on a fallacy. The fact that I it is possible that my critical faculties are limited by my species is not an argument to suggest that any truths coming from them are untrustworthy.
0
4 years ago
#156
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Not if your axiom is false or unknowable/unprovable.

Again back with the god thing. Sure you can run some kind of simulation in your monkey mind that if God did exist then the rest logically follows. But it doesn't matter how complex or logically sound the entirety of your philosophy is, if it is all based on something plucked out of thin air, like decided god exists. It's all based on a terrible axiom that has no grounding in reality.
No. Even if your axiom is factually incorrect, if you assume it to be true (that is, arbitrarily define it with a positive truth value, then you deductions from it must be true within that system. Seriously, this isn't hard.

You're the only one talking about assuming God. I didn't bring that up. We should only assume things we know and THEN start deducing things.
0
4 years ago
#157
(Original post by KingStannis)
I'm not saying that example is true. That's an example of how an argument can be formally valid, and the fact that it is formally valid is true given the assumptions used to prove it. EVEN IF those assumptions are false. EVEN IF the whole of logic is just constructed by our monkey brains, within in the system our monkey brains produced, it is true that the system is valid.

The point is is that the assumptions we do you DO conform to reality, and that is why we trust them.

Furthermore, your whole argument here relies on a fallacy. The fact that I it is possible that my critical faculties are limited by my species is not an argument to suggest that any truths coming from them are untrustworthy.
1 + 4 = 5 then U exists

U = unicorns.

Unicorns exist.

Therefor unicorn horns exist.

Now please respect my position and let me take load so money in academia for my unicorn theology based on the logic surrounding unicorn horns philosophy research.

That';s basically what theology is. It's philosophy sure, but the base assumption of it does not in anyway have grounding in reality so it all fulls apart. It;s bad philosophy.

I'm goign to bed and will dream fo unicorns. My sensors will tell me I am seeing unicorns so they must exist.
0
4 years ago
#158
(Original post by KingStannis)

Furthermore, your whole argument here relies on a fallacy. The fact that I it is possible that my critical faculties are limited by my species is not an argument to suggest that any truths coming from them are untrustworthy.
No, but if you are going to be honest you need to accept they will be shaped by them. and you should be weary of what your sensors tell you. Your sensors tell you that table is solid. Yet we now know it is mostly empty space.
0
4 years ago
#159
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
1 + 4 = 5 then U exists

U = unicorns.

Unicorns exist.

Therefor unicorn horns exist.

Now please respect my position and let me take load so money in academia for my unicorn theology based on the logic surrounding unicorn horns philosophy research.

That';s basically what theology is. It's philosophy sure, but the base assumption of it does not in anyway have grounding in reality so it all fulls apart. It;s bad philosophy.

I'm goign to bed and will dream fo unicorns. My sensors will tell me I am seeing unicorns so they must exist.
That is not an argument theologians make. Yes, it is valid. That just means the conclusions follow from the premises, regardless of whether the arguments true or not., What I'm saying is that it is true that such arguments are valid. maybe this is where your confusion lies?
0
4 years ago
#160
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
No, but if you are going to be honest you need to accept they will be shaped by them. and you should be weary of what your sensors tell you. Your sensors tell you that table is solid. Yet we now know it is mostly empty space.
It's both. It's empty space, and yet if i feel it is solid. There's no contradiction there, it's just matter behaves in a non intuitive way.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### Poll

Join the discussion

Yes (67)
23.18%
No (222)
76.82%