What does STEM stand for?

Reply 180

KingStannis

3

Original post by ennahaspatience

Dont lie

specify what part of the post you're referring to.

Reply 181

Zakee

Original post by KingStannis

Actually the opposite :wink:

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. :smile:

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 182

ennahaspatience

2

Original post by KingStannis

specify what part of the post you're referring to.

Social sciences are STEM. NOPE.

Reply 183

KingStannis

3

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. :smile:

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?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 184

KingStannis

3

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.

Reply 185

Zakee

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.

Reply 186

ennahaspatience

2

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

Reply 187

KingStannis

3

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"?

Reply 188

Zakee

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.

:smile:

Reply 189

KingStannis

3

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.

Reply 190

KingStannis

3

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.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 191

Robbie242

a thread on STEM has now turned into a philosophy debate

damn social scientists

Reply 192

TenthBelt1993

11

Original post by KingStannis

Hey, I'm just repeating what I heard.

Is that a level maths, or a level econ?

A Level maths

Reply 193

KingStannis

3

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?

Reply 194

KingStannis

3

Original post by Robbie242

a thread on STEM has now turned into a philosophy debate

damn social scientists

bro, do you even exist?

:cool:

Reply 195

Robbie242

Original post by KingStannis

bro, do you even exist?

:cool:

that's more deep then ur mums vajayjay

Reply 196

TenthBelt1993

11

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.

Reply 197

TenthBelt1993

11

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?

Reply 198

KingStannis

3

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 :angry:

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

Reply 199

KingStannis

3

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's_ontological_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.