Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Philosophy For discussion about general and fundamental problems connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language


Thanks Tree5Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 14th, 2018, 06:35 PM   #21
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 29,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
Gravity is a primitive assumption based on limited observation. As we have explored the universe we have been lead to the more general and fundamental axiom that all matter has gravity. This is observable and repeatable, but only within the limits of our perceptions. Less than a blink of an eye measured in time and further we donít even know what 90 percent the universe is by our own reckoning. So it remains an axiom taken on faith. True so far, so we assume it always will be. Unexplained by any known mechanism.

Straight line ? Circles? The very sentence structure you used show this is a theorem derived from assumptions.
Wrong and wrong again. Why do you even bother. Matter does not have "gravity". Matter has mass. Observations repeatedly and consistently show that masses attract each other. Mathematics allows us to quantify that attraction. Thus it is not an axiom at all but the result of observations. The rest of your blurt is obfuscation.

And if you didn't understand the point of the line segment don't worry. Your kids could probably fill you in.

It isn't a theorem, it is an axion that theorems are built from.
RNG is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 06:53 PM   #22
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
This, probably better than anything else displays your total lack of any knowledge of science whatsoever. Chemisty, physics, astronomy electricity are all totally dependent on mathematics. Some biology and physiology may be possible without it, but even there more and more often statistical analyses and in the extreme, quantum calculations are needed to understand systems being studied.

You are completely and totally wrong.
Algebra is a tool, not science. Anymore than a saw is carpentry.

Last edited by webguy4; January 14th, 2018 at 09:08 PM.
webguy4 is online now  
Old January 14th, 2018, 08:00 PM   #23
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 29,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
Algebra is a tool, not science. Anymore than a saw in carpentry.
You just blew your analogy. How do you do carpentry without the tools needed to do it. You can't. They are inseparable.
RNG is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 09:07 PM   #24
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
You just blew your analogy. How do you do carpentry without the tools needed to do it. You can't. They are inseparable.
Actually I could cut would without a saw, but it would take a long time.

Or I could use a laser.
webguy4 is online now  
Old January 14th, 2018, 09:09 PM   #25
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Wrong and wrong again. Why do you even bother. Matter does not have "gravity". Matter has mass. Observations repeatedly and consistently show that masses attract each other. Mathematics allows us to quantify that attraction. Thus it is not an axiom at all but the result of observations. The rest of your blurt is obfuscation.

And if you didn't understand the point of the line segment don't worry. Your kids could probably fill you in.

It isn't a theorem, it is an axion that theorems are built from.
Observations confirm the axiom, but it remains unexplained.
webguy4 is online now  
Old January 14th, 2018, 09:14 PM   #26
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 29,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
Actually I could cut would without a saw, but it would take a long time.

Or I could use a laser.
Which is why I said tools. You could cut wood by hand but not only would it take a long time, it would be a mess and the product would suck.

Just like trying to do science without math. You could make observations, and come to a very limited number of qualitative conclusions but advancement would be at best minimal.

Math is fundamental to science.
RNG is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 09:14 PM   #27
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 29,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
Observations confirm the axiom, but it remains unexplained.
So now you are moving the goalposts?
RNG is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 09:18 PM   #28
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Which is why I said tools. You could cut wood by hand but not only would it take a long time, it would be a mess and the product would suck.

Just like trying to do science without math. You could make observations, and come to a very limited number of qualitative conclusions but advancement would be at best minimal.

Math is fundamental to science.
So we are agreed almost, we were talking about algebra, not math. Itís a very useful tool.
webguy4 is online now  
Old January 15th, 2018, 10:15 AM   #29
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 29,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
So we are agreed almost, we were talking about algebra, not math. It’s a very useful tool.
No, it takes much more than algebra. It takes statistics, it takes calculus, it takes graph theory, it takes combinatorics, it takes Fourier analysis and Laplace transformations. It takes partial differential equations, and it takes quantum mechanics.

There'd be no transistors, no satellites, no internet, almost none of the toys and tools we have without the full spectrum of mathematics.

And I did notice that that's another goalpost move.
RNG is offline  
Old January 15th, 2018, 12:20 PM   #30
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
No, it takes much more than algebra. It takes statistics, it takes calculus, it takes graph theory, it takes combinatorics, it takes Fourier analysis and Laplace transformations. It takes partial differential equations, and it takes quantum mechanics.

There'd be no transistors, no satellites, no internet, almost none of the toys and tools we have without the full spectrum of mathematics.

And I did notice that that's another goalpost move.
Of course science uses many tools. Your original post along this line said algebra. I thought you were trying to make a point about giving Moslems some credit for the invention of what we Today call science.

I believe the primary originator of what we call the scientific method to be Francis Bacon.
webguy4 is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Tags
faith, reason



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How much more of you of little faith dusty Christianity 46 December 23rd, 2014 04:29 PM
Moyers on Faith & Reason hoosier88 Christianity 0 July 23rd, 2014 07:50 AM
Bigot against Faith Nwolfe35 Philosophy 71 May 29th, 2013 04:20 AM
the reason Jesus is the reason for the season . . . . dadman Philosophy 28 December 18th, 2012 07:39 AM
testimony of faith Rod Religion 15 July 7th, 2007 07:34 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.