Yea, I met a few in college while going through GE's (anthro and multicultural studies come to mind). They didn't seem to enjoy our discussions as much as I did. I believe the term "rude and abrasive azzhole" was thrown around a few times. In my humble opinion I would be better described as a jocular and thoughtful gentleman, but I suppose they're entitled to their opinion.

Ouch. Lol.

Nah really, math isn't necessarily totally arbitrary. You mention simply the names of the digits.....these aren't important. We can name the natural numbers whatever we like, names aren't important. Let's call them 0,2,1,4,3,6,5,8,7..... in order. Then we just have 2+1 = 4, 3+2 = 6, 8 is a prime number, etc. Nothing has changed, just naming the numbers. We could also just call the natural numbers 0,cow,dog,cat,pig,horse,....... Then cow + cat = pig, horse is prime, etc. These are just names.* Whatisimportant is structure. The primes, for example are a built in structure to the natural numbers.


*To get an idea of how modern math treats numbers, where everything is put into the language of sets, we could define whole numbers within naive set theory as follows (after Russell):

0 is defined as {}, the empty set
1 is defined as the set of all sets that can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with {{}}, the set containing {}.
2 is defined as the set of all sets that can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the set { {},{{}} }, the set containing {},{{}}
Etc
We have essentially done away with all names of digits, and just need sets {}, membership, and the notion of one-to-one correspondence for our numbers.


OP.....scienceworks. That's one of the best justifications for it. It makes accurate predictions. It leads to all the technology around us. Not saying it has to be perfect- that's more the realm of mathematics- but science is always open up to the possibility of falsifiability. Similar to how general relativity superceded Newton's gravitation. But at the moment, current science is the best we got, and does quite well at enabling us to know nature.

Some scientific fields are less credible, such as climate science. That's a problem of political ideologies interfering with science.

I've been called domineering, condescending, and smug. I've also been told not to "mansplain" things. srs....

Dumb people think other people are being mean when really they are just trying to educate them.

especially the neil degrasse Tyson *******s

science is just hypothesis
its not fact
and science can be swayed for agendas and it HISTORICALLY HAS ALWAYS BEEN SWAYED

Numbers only exist in the human mind. Numbers exist nowhere else in the universe. The universe only appears this way because we are experiencing it in a human life from this plane of existence.

Assuming that extra terrestrials have a physical form in this dimension and assuming they see reality in the same way as us and create symbols like letters or numbers or make mouth noises like words or whatever we use to put a structure of thought from my mind to yours is arrogant as well

0 is wrong. We do not experience true nothingness. If we say a person is living=1 and a person dead =0 we are not representing the person of not ever existing at all. I have 1 apple, you have 0 apples, we don't represent apples not existing at all. Saying there are 0 apples in the world means that apples still exist. You can not represent true 0 or nonexistence or whatever you call it with mathematics or comprehend what I am talking about with a human mind

The most ironic thing ever witnessed in the history of the universe:



Nothing screams "I submit my ideas openly so they may be disproven by evidence," like an angry mob willing to beat critics into submission. The word "science" is now just a rhetorical tool.

This is how 'science' has been hijacked by the left and made part of their cult. Meanwhile they routinely deny the most basic biology.

This is how 'science' has been hijacked by the left and made part of their cult. Meanwhile they routinely deny the most basic biology.

real talk: i think liberals take a neurotic approach. they look at the mind to say theres no "you" which is partly true

but the ego - the mind "you" - is used to represent your body

this is their hypocrisy imo. why they seem to lack self-awareness, etc. its because theyre denying a "you" mentally while simultaneously living

you cant deny "you" forever as you need to eat. so their walking around with that belief (or lackthereof) while simultaneously using it; thats why they are walking hypocritical machines

The most ironic thing ever witnessed in the history of the universe:



Nothing screams "I submit my ideas openly so they may be disproven by evidence," like an angry mob willing to beat critics into submission. The word "science" is now just a rhetorical tool.