7
   

What's more true: 2+2=4 or II+II=IV?

 
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2020 12:31 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

This is something that often happens between scientists and non-scientists.

A scientist with an expertise in the field that comes from years of studying and experience, meets with a non-scientist who has read about the same field on the internet.

- The non-scientist will say something to show how much they know... for example they will say "the second law of thermodynamics means that the universe tends towards disorder".

- The scientist will recognize this as a simplification of the real science and will agree.

True statements are not 'simplifation of 'real science.'' Science is not a body of knowledge/information but a process or set of processes that pursue/promise hope of a certain kind of truth. A true statement is simply true. You might be able to elaborate other details related to it that are also true, but that doesn't make the first statement a simplification of something else.

Quote:
- Then the non-scientist will continue to talk, this time pushing the simplification too far. They will say something that is a misunderstanding such as... "so this means that life can't evolve to a more complex form (i.e. a living organism) from simpler forms (i.e. molecules).

People can make naive claims and saying they "pushed a simplification too far" doesn't explain why a claim is false. All it does is relate it on the level of aesthetic form to some other fact. E.g. if you try to nail a board and the nail bends, you can say that your hypothesis that a metal nail will penetrate a wooden board was oversimplified from a more complex knowledge of carpentry that realizes there are harder woods and softer metals that result in a nail bending sometimes when hammered. That doesn't make the first claim too simplistic, though. It was just a more general statement that didn't take into consideration the possibility of softer metal and harder wood.

Quote:
- The scientist will try to explain where the non-scientist is wrong. Now the scientist has real knowledge from years of study that the non-scientist doesn't have.

It doesn't matter. Experienced people still get things wrong, and sometimes, "from the mouths of babes," comes truth.

Quote:
- The scientist can't use mathematics because the non-scientist doesn't understand that. The scientist can explain what terms like entropy really mean, because the non scientist doesn't have the background.

Entropy is not a mathematical concept. It simple refers to states changing from more organized to less organized due to the tendency for heat to dissipate.

Quote:
- What the non-scientist has is simplistic, dumbed down philosophical explanations about what terms like "entropy means". And the non-scientists can't see how they are misunderstanding the topic because they don't have the knowledge or background.

What often ends up happening is that the non-scientist relying on simplifications, misunderstandings and things they read on the internet insisting that the real scientist is wrong. The real scientist will sometimes try to be patient and to give a good explanation, but these things are complicated and the non-scientist usually decides to stick with their simple understanding anyway.

This is a frustrating process for scientists. The real solution is for everyone who wants to do science to take the time to get a real education (including the mathematical background).

Of course the scientists (that is institutional scientists) go on advancing the knowledge at the core of semiconductors, and medicine, and space travel, and materials and so many other things. And the non-scientists continue to come up with weird theories and misunderstandings on the internet.

The real problem, in my opinion, is when society doesn't listen to to scientists on matters of science. Scientists don't know everything. But lack of willingness to accept scientific expertise from the experts is a problem when it comes to important scientific questions like climate change, or preventing epidemics, or how to produce enough food.

The problem with everything you posted above is that if the 'scientist' makes a mistake and says something wrong, either because they misunderstood it or because the facts/paradigm is wrong; then there is nothing in this authoritarian logic that can catch and fix the mistake. If you maintained science as a relationship between 'scientists' and 'non-scientists,' then there would be no basis for ever recognizing any truth if it came from a 'non-scientist' or any falsity if it came from a 'scientist.'
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2020 12:31 pm
@Osibos,
Osibos wrote:
From Catholics.
So you gathered that the addition symbol in Latin is "-" from Catholics.
I'm a Catholic, too, as were those who used it first.

But how is it related to religion? I mean, if you are Catholic or Atheist: anyone who isn't blind can have a look at the sources.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2020 12:36 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

I only noticed this just now:
Osibos wrote:
from what I've gathered the addition symbol in Latin is "-"
From where did you get this information? Have you seen any Latin/Roman originals showing such?

The - sign, first appeared in 1481 the German algebra manuscript of "Mercantile Arithmetic oder Behende und hüpsche Rechenung auff allen Kauffmanschafft" (printed in 1487).

The + sign is a bit older, instead of writing "et", Nicole d’Oresme used "+" and appeared later (in 1417) in a manuscript as well.
The first printed + sign appeared in the same book mentioned above.

Interesting. "Et" is a logical word to use, and now I'm wondering what words were used for the numerals. E.g. were they pronounced as letters? Was 'sunt' used for "=?" Maybe 'ex' was used for "-," e.g. IV ex X sunt VI.

Of course I'm just guessing. Do you have any historical information about it?
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2020 12:37 pm
@Osibos,
Osibos wrote:

livinglava wrote:

Osibos wrote:

2+2=4 is more true, from what I've gathered the addition symbol in Latin is "-" although you are right, there is no reason,beyond a sophisticated demeanor that hides ones true intention, to disregard an intended meaning described by one from another. One may be blind, but still sees through illusion, one may be deaf but still listens to the self. It may be darkest before the dawn but if one is bored of the daylight, why wouldn't one hide from the sun?

"Why wouldn't one hide from the sun?"

A: because one may have the foresight to wish to avert the consequences of choosing darkness over light.


The moment we avert ourselves not to see the light is the moment we think the moon is the sun.

The moon's not the sun, so why would you want to avert yourself not to see the light?
Osibos
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2020 12:56 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:

Osibos wrote:

livinglava wrote:

Osibos wrote:

2+2=4 is more true, from what I've gathered the addition symbol in Latin is "-" although you are right, there is no reason,beyond a sophisticated demeanor that hides ones true intention, to disregard an intended meaning described by one from another. One may be blind, but still sees through illusion, one may be deaf but still listens to the self. It may be darkest before the dawn but if one is bored of the daylight, why wouldn't one hide from the sun?

"Why wouldn't one hide from the sun?"

A: because one may have the foresight to wish to avert the consequences of choosing darkness over light.


The moment we avert ourselves not to see the light is the moment we think the moon is the sun.

The moon's not the sun, so why would you want to avert yourself not to see the light?


Boredom. Hate. Are you having trouble discerning my intuition? Or are you more in doubt of my source? I'd be happy to inquire elsewhere as to the efficacy of people who type. If you use a hyphen in relevance to a set of books labeled III through V do you then not include IV but only II? Furthermore, my metaphor can be explained simply: if you don't want to understand someone you will purposefully hide their information. The why is an older question than modern mathematics, perhaps a more traditional route is appropriate. But, its time to ask some questions.
What is Catholic? For that matter, are their schools different? At what point is a source fallible? And if say one person tells 3 and they each tell 3, if a misunderstanding is the basis, would you not consider them bored? Or do you not understand what I mean?
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2020 02:07 pm
@Osibos,
Osibos wrote:

livinglava wrote:

Osibos wrote:

livinglava wrote:

Osibos wrote:

2+2=4 is more true, from what I've gathered the addition symbol in Latin is "-" although you are right, there is no reason,beyond a sophisticated demeanor that hides ones true intention, to disregard an intended meaning described by one from another. One may be blind, but still sees through illusion, one may be deaf but still listens to the self. It may be darkest before the dawn but if one is bored of the daylight, why wouldn't one hide from the sun?

"Why wouldn't one hide from the sun?"

A: because one may have the foresight to wish to avert the consequences of choosing darkness over light.


The moment we avert ourselves not to see the light is the moment we think the moon is the sun.

The moon's not the sun, so why would you want to avert yourself not to see the light?


Boredom. Hate. Are you having trouble discerning my intuition?

Now it's explicit so I don't have to discern. You hate life, so you are pushing yourself toward madness and death.
Osibos
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2020 02:49 pm
@livinglava,
You have answered your own question. It's a matter of looking within to find the answer.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2020 10:14 pm
@Osibos,
Osibos wrote:

You have answered your own question. It's a matter of looking within to find the answer.

It can be better to answer it in dialogue with others so that the discovery won't be limited to the individual level.

Ultimately, though, you're right that every question gets answered within when the mind convenes with Holy Spirit to synthesize everything it's learned and thought about what it's learned, and then use it all to take that leap of faith that is tentative acceptance of revelation as truth-for-now.
Osibos
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Feb, 2020 06:13 pm
@livinglava,
Alright... You seem to have taken my words and interpreted them with some bias. Having understood that, why exactly did you interpret them thus? Rather than try to understand them where they differ, where they are the same, and where the conversation goes? Instead of diving into representation we had a short scuffle, and the scuffle itself is... pointless in the goals of building a greater understanding. If the arabics and latians joined together, would not many cities still be standing? Would we not be richer? Even more rich than say, the turks who likewise only did battle in order to conquer the world? A sense of autonomy is sometimes frowned upon because we won't know how they diverge in law or language, but in terms of favoritism it means more people are in power and there is more balance. The why, it seems stems from having nothing better to do, or boredom. According to certain views, boredom, is a cause to go to war. Why would we negotiate and lose a little to gain more? When we could go to war and only gain? Here the loss of life is equal to a gain of wealth. The expense of power is to lose what is worth the least. The expense of negotiation is to lose something that is of value for at least a short time, to acquire something that is of value. So, I guess the root can be processed to whether you have something to lose. What it is that you have to lose, and whether it is more valuable to cost what is not valuable to the power structure in order to gain wealth and even conscripts to replace those countrymen who have fallen.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/04/2020 at 03:47:49