Forecasted Next Response: "Nuh-Uh. <repeat previous, again and again>"

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

How are you using the term "proof"? There really is no proof in science. You can disprove something by showing it to be false, but you can't show that something is absolutely true and therefore proven. We use theory instead so we always keep testing and asking questions. There are no "answers" as much as there are best supported explanations.

Formal proofs are for philosophy and maths, and so is logic. What you think of as logic in science is reasoning. If you want proofs, you need to use the methodology.

My opinion is that you are elavating arguments and argumentation to a level that it does not belong.

Maths is more rigorous and science uses maths to be more rigorous.

Philosophy is just arguing as precisily as possible, using various techniques as was shared in that detailed compilation of arguments and argumentation.

12 hours ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

My opinion is that you are elavating arguments and argumentation to a level that it does not belong.

Maths is more rigorous and science uses maths to be more rigorous.

Philosophy is just arguing as precisily as possible, using various techniques as was shared in that detailed compilation of arguments and argumentation.

Maths is a more precise language, that allows the language speaker's to argue more precisely; but not all scientist's speak the language fluently enough to understand the argument.

Philosophy is like mathematics in many way's, other than the likelihood of the people that don't understand the math to disagree with a simple arithmetical sum versus the people faced with a simple philosophical argument spoken in pigeon English...

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Maths is a more precise language, that allows the language speaker's to argue more precisely; but not all scientist's speak the language fluently enough to understand the argument.

Philosophy is like mathematics in many way's, other than the likelihood of the people that don't understand the math to disagree with a simple arithmetical sum versus the people faced with a simple philosophical argument spoken in pigeon English...

That is your perspective but I think maths proofs are way more rigorous. Philosophy is more about getting out everyone's views and see if it illuminates what the reasonable options are.

5 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

That is your perspective but I think maths proofs are way more rigorous. .

I don't speak the languge, do you?

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I don't speak the languge, do you?

I watch numberphile and math history documentaries. In geometry, Euclid covered flat plane geometry while teaching the world how to prove from axioms. Then we have curved geometries and multi-dimensional geometry. The poincare conjecture that Perelman solved from my memory proved the missing dimensions, leading to a proof for all dimensions. If you can prove for dimensions that you cannot imagine in your head and know it is true, then it is extremely rigorous.

1 minute ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

If you can prove for dimensions that you cannot imagine in your head and know it is true, then it is extremely rigorous.

And we're back to Nietzcher and what you want to discover/believe, that's a lot of page's to end up believing in something a Mormon might...

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And we're back to Nietzcher and what you want to discover/believe, that's a lot of page's to end up believing in something a Mormon might...

I haven't read and understood Nietzsche but curved geometry gives us general relativity, multi-dimensional math gives us string theory. Number theory gives us cryptography. Fourier analysis gives us the MRI. You get the point.

The rigor of maths let's us do amazing things because it tells us with precision what is true and what to do. Philosophy is about perspectives to awaken the restlessness of reason and see where it might lead, which can enrich our personal and political lives but can't stand against science in terms of contribution.

1 minute ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

I haven't read and understood Nietzsche but curved geometry gives us general relativity, multi-dimensional math gives us string theory. Number theory gives us cryptography. Fourier analysis gives us the MRI. You get the point.

I do indeed, you don't understand 'the point'... 

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

I do indeed, you don't understand 'the point'... 

You speak cryptically. Not my fault I don't understand you.

Just now, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

You speak cryptically. Not my fault I don't understand you.

You could ask for clues, which is kinda the point of cryptically; not my fault that you don't understand the language...

For the record Fourier analysis is used for the entire model of particles it isn't restricted to MRI. It's essential in QFT 

On 8/3/2024 at 9:41 AM, dimreepr said:

You could ask for clues, which is kinda the point of cryptically; not my fault that you don't understand the language...

Is that the point? I usually reject the premise that you hold all the philosophical answers and we're simply asking you the wrong questions. 

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Is that the point? I usually reject the premise that you hold all the philosophical answers and we're simply asking you the wrong questions. 

It is for them, philosophically it's about asking ourselves question's; it's kinda like morality, what can I get away with, if they don't speak the lingo...