Why is ID so successful?

cyborg said:
I feel the need to reiterate:

However the stronger argument is that there is no reason I cannot formulate a logical system where by adding one object to another does not give two objects. Such a system may be of limited value but there is no logical reason why I cannot define it so. You may think "oh, in that case there's no REAL mathmatics that does this so my point stands." Wrong again my ignorant friend. I'll tell you why.

Consider geometry for a moment. Would you consider the shortest distance between two-points to always be a line? That two parallel lines never cross? Are these timeless? Yes you say? Dead wrong. There's a whole set of non-Ecludian geometry that deals exactly with such systems where parallel lines do meet and the shortest distance between two points is not a line. In fact Ecludian geometry may only be considered one particular case of an infinite number of possible geometries.
Click to expand...

Have you got anything to say to this Iacchus? Are you going to admit to being out of your depth or not?
Click to expand...

UGH.
 
Iacchus said:
No, I did not. But, according to Occam's Razor, do you really think it was necessary?
Click to expand...
Well, yes, actually. Your claim was that 1 + 1 = 2 is always true and self-evident. The first was demonstrably wrong and I'm glad to see that you have finally accepted that. The second is wrong because it does not justify its own truth value.

And you are still using "Occam's Razor" inappropriately.
[fquote]Remember, I'm not the one who's trying to compound the issue. Whereas I have since corrected this (or attempted to) two or three times already. [/FQUOTE]No, but you are trying to oversimplfy it by painting things in broad strokes of black and white. The world is not a simple place.

To quote Einstein, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
 
Do dead corpses have feelings? Or, are you implying there's something else there?
 
Upchurch said:
No, but you are trying to oversimplfy it by painting things in broad strokes of black and white. The world is not a simple place.
Click to expand...
I would go so far as to say the vast majority of people on this planet can comprehend 1 + 1 = 2. And yes, that would be "in context" with the decimal system. Which of course suggests 1 + 1 = 2 is self-evident. If not, then that means people are incapable of seeing things for themselves. Is that such a God-awful hard concept for you to accept? ... Or, perhaps some of us would rather not make it known that the acceptance of truth is inborn? That's a possibility too.
 
Iacchus said:
I would go so far as to say the vast majority of people on this planet can comprehend 1 + 1 = 2. And yes, that would be "in context" with the decimal system. Which of course suggests 1 + 1 = 2 is self-evident.
Click to expand...
Not too long ago, the vast majority of people on this planet could comprehend that the Sun moves around the Earth. Does this also suggest that the Sun moving around the Earth is self-evident? No? Why not?

What is it about majority opinion that suggests the former situation is self-evident and the latter is not?

Further, how can 1 + 1 = 2 be self-evident if it is only true within a specific context?
[fquote]If not, then that means people are incapable of seeing things for themselves.[/fquote]Not at all. It mostly means that you do not understand what the term "self-evident" means and/or what criteria are required for something to be so.

The fact is, from a purely analytical point of view, nothing is self-evidently true. "1 + 1 = 2" is true via definition of the terms and mathematical operational logic.
[fquote]Is that such a God-awful hard concept for you to accept?[/fquote]It is not a hard concept. I don't reject it because it is hard. I reject it because it is not true.
[fquote]... Or, perhaps some of us would rather not make it known that the acceptance of truth is inborn? That's a possibility too. [/FQUOTE]"Acceptance of truth" is inborn in the sense that it is up to each of to internally decide what it is that we choose to accept as truth. Truth, itself, is not inborn. We do not spring from the womb with an understanding of the truth of mathematics. It is something that we must be taught, either in school or from interacting with the world around us.

Take, for example, your own experience in this thread. You were apparently unaware of the workings (and possibly the existance) of binary numbers. The truth of 1 + 1 = 10 was not self-evident to you even though it is the exactly the same in principle as 1 + 1 = 2. If this were really "inborn truth", why did you have to be taught it? Shouldn't you have known about it already?
 
Boy, you sure like to complicate things, don't you? ;) Or, at least this much is quite evident to me. But then again, as you say, maybe it's a misapplication of Occam's Razor? Obviously it doesn't suit your purposes anyway. Hmm ...

And of course you do realize Occam's Razor would have stated that the "earth was flat" in its time. :D
 
Iacchus said:
Boy, you sure like to complicate things, don't you? ;)
Click to expand...
Naw, I just like to get things right. I can see that for you, that isn't so much of a priority.
[fquote]Or, at least this much is quite evident to me. But then again, as you say, maybe it's a misapplication of Occam's Razor? [/fquote]... um, you do understand that Occam's Razor doesn't say that the simplist explination is the correct one, don't you? There is one more necessary condition that you haven't seemed to pick up on.
[fquote]And of course you do realize Occam's Razor would have stated that the earth was flat in its time. :D [/FQUOTE]Only for those who chose to not obtain the necessary facts available to them.
 
Iacchus said:
And of course you do realize Occam's Razor would have stated that the "earth was flat" in its time. :D
Click to expand...
If we needed more proof that you do not understand Occam's Razor, we just got it.
 
Upchurch said:
Take, for example, your own experience in this thread. You were apparently unaware of the workings (and possibly the existance) of binary numbers. The truth of 1 + 1 = 10 was not self-evident to you even though it is the exactly the same in principle as 1 + 1 = 2. If this were really "inborn truth", why did you have to be taught it? Shouldn't you have known about it already?
Click to expand...
Neither should we mistake the symbols for the principle here, otherwise the whole thing gets taken out of context and we lose sight of everything. Which "is" the experience I have experienced in this thread. The fact that 1 + 1 = 2 (in principle), is timeless as I said.
 
Iacchus said:
And of course you do realize Occam's Razor would have stated that the "earth was flat" in its time.
Click to expand...
Say what? Occam's Razor comes into play when we have two or more competing theories, all of which explain the known facts. Then we favor the theory with the fewest gadgets and widgets.

So we have Flat Earth theory and Round Earth theory. Do they both explain all the facts? Does the Flat Earth theory explain the horizon and the shape of the shadow during an eclipse? Not really, but If so, the explanations are undoubtedly ad hoc.

~~ Paul
 
Iacchus said:
Neither should we mistake the symbols for the principle here, otherwise the whole thing gets taken out of context and we lose sight of everything. Which "is" the experience I have experienced in this thread.
Click to expand...
If you are interested in the principle rather than the symbols, then do not use symbols to express the principle, lest the symbology turn out to be incorrect and divert attention from the principle.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
If you are interested in the principle rather than the symbols, then do not use symbols to express the principle, lest the symbology turn out to be incorrect and divert attention from the principle.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...
No, I'm not the one who's letting the words (and symbols) get in the way here. In fact I'm quite sure most of you folks understood what I was talking about when I mentioned 1 + 1 = 2. So, can anyone spell the word "obfuscate?"
 
Upchurch said:
And yet, it must be taught. It is not inate knowledge.
Click to expand...
So, how do you know 1 + 1 = 2? Are you saying you don't know it for yourself? If not, then how will you ever know? Wow! Maybe this science stuff is a lot like religion after all? ... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom