@ Dude
We have significantly different definitions for belief and fact.
@Rob
"I think that one of the problems we have might be that we are having a harder time pulling together as one nation than we did in the past."
I agree. Though, I'm not sure there is a divide on the basics. The problem is that the extremes have tried to include more in the basics than in the past.
@Maus
"Vote the fiscal policy and the other will sort itself out."
The problem is that both parties fiscal policy is the same...spend. The majority of the economic policies currently in place because of the economic crisis were started under Bush and continued by Obama. Where is the fiscal choice? Even without the crisis Republicans spend on defense and Democrats spend on social issues, so again, not fiscally responsible. A direct quote from a top Republican, the "fiscally responsible party", "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." - Dick Cheney
A Non-political Post
@dpmorel
This book deals with your subject on the Founding Fathers:
http://www.amazon.com/Apollyon-Rising-2 ... 365&sr=1-1
This book deals with your subject on the Founding Fathers:
http://www.amazon.com/Apollyon-Rising-2 ... 365&sr=1-1
@Dude
The theories of evolution are much much much closer to being your perfect ideal definition of fact than any creationist myth. Especially, since evolution has actually been observed directly and in other instances, indirectly, over small period of time.
Also, evolution does not state that life emerged from rock.
The theories of evolution are much much much closer to being your perfect ideal definition of fact than any creationist myth. Especially, since evolution has actually been observed directly and in other instances, indirectly, over small period of time.
Also, evolution does not state that life emerged from rock.
@ Chad
Micro evolution, yes. Macro, I have not seen anything that is irrefutable once you see all the evidence. The big bang, ect. implies (to me) we spontaneously came from star stuff. I realize there is lots of time to include exact mixtures with the right amino acids and whatever, but for me it still goes back to a rock.
For me, the theories do not explain how anything came to being. Where did nothing (space) come from for galaxies to expand? Where did everything come from? A pinpoint of nothingness in a pinpoint in time? Matter, anti-matter, it doesn't explain how and will never satify my why. How can an electron exist in multiple places at the same time? Why do they act differently when humans try to observe them? Why can't I see like an eagle?
I just have never seen and don't think there will ever be proof to make either argument a 2+2=4 fact.
I respect your opinion.
I probably should have started another thread if you would like to keep this going. We are starting to highjack this one:)
Micro evolution, yes. Macro, I have not seen anything that is irrefutable once you see all the evidence. The big bang, ect. implies (to me) we spontaneously came from star stuff. I realize there is lots of time to include exact mixtures with the right amino acids and whatever, but for me it still goes back to a rock.
For me, the theories do not explain how anything came to being. Where did nothing (space) come from for galaxies to expand? Where did everything come from? A pinpoint of nothingness in a pinpoint in time? Matter, anti-matter, it doesn't explain how and will never satify my why. How can an electron exist in multiple places at the same time? Why do they act differently when humans try to observe them? Why can't I see like an eagle?
I just have never seen and don't think there will ever be proof to make either argument a 2+2=4 fact.
I respect your opinion.
I probably should have started another thread if you would like to keep this going. We are starting to highjack this one:)
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15995
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Actually, 2+2=4 isn't a fact in the way that a scientist would use the word fact---it's more like a law of nature (also a mathematical theory, but only since about 100 years ago!). To wit, science and the public use the words theory, law, hypothesis, and fact almost in a completely opposite manner. Here's the science way of looking at it
fact - a data point, an observation, could be inaccurate, subject to precision
hypothesis - an explanation of a data point
law - a hypothesis that is consistently correct (predicts facts within precision)
theory - a collection of laws within a greater framework --- an abstraction of laws so to speak similar how to a law is an abstraction of facts.
To a scientist a "theory" is much stronger than a single "fact", because the theory is based on thousands [or simply a lot of] facts.
To a layman
fact - the truth
theory - a random hypothesis as in "I have a theory, that Bob took the car."
Naturally, not agreeing about what the words mean creates endless confusion when arguing these points.
To biologists, evolution is a theory much like gravity is a theory to physicists.
Back to the 2+2=4. In 1910 or so Whitehead and Russell (yes, Bertrand Russell) wrote a great book called Principia Mathematica with the intention of proving everything from fundamentals. You may think that 1+1=2 is pretty fundamental, but it isn't. It took them 120 pages to prove it using set theory. 10 pages later they got to ... and thus we conclude that 2+2=4.
Now math is kinda separate since it's a philosophy and not a science. If we use it in a science way, we take 2 apples and 2 other apples, put them together and count them again. We get 4. This is a "fact". Now, we have a hypothesis that 4 comes about by adding, that is, using a mathematical process of addition, 2 and 2. This is a "hypothesis". We test our hypothesis by doing the same thing for 2 oranges, 2 horses, etc. and confirm it still works. This is now a "law". Now, we get an idea that it also may work for 3 apples and 2 apples. We test that too. Indeed 3+2=5. This whole counting system or "addition" now becomes a "theory".
Okay, back on topic guys ...
fact - a data point, an observation, could be inaccurate, subject to precision
hypothesis - an explanation of a data point
law - a hypothesis that is consistently correct (predicts facts within precision)
theory - a collection of laws within a greater framework --- an abstraction of laws so to speak similar how to a law is an abstraction of facts.
To a scientist a "theory" is much stronger than a single "fact", because the theory is based on thousands [or simply a lot of] facts.
To a layman
fact - the truth
theory - a random hypothesis as in "I have a theory, that Bob took the car."
Naturally, not agreeing about what the words mean creates endless confusion when arguing these points.
To biologists, evolution is a theory much like gravity is a theory to physicists.
Back to the 2+2=4. In 1910 or so Whitehead and Russell (yes, Bertrand Russell) wrote a great book called Principia Mathematica with the intention of proving everything from fundamentals. You may think that 1+1=2 is pretty fundamental, but it isn't. It took them 120 pages to prove it using set theory. 10 pages later they got to ... and thus we conclude that 2+2=4.
Now math is kinda separate since it's a philosophy and not a science. If we use it in a science way, we take 2 apples and 2 other apples, put them together and count them again. We get 4. This is a "fact". Now, we have a hypothesis that 4 comes about by adding, that is, using a mathematical process of addition, 2 and 2. This is a "hypothesis". We test our hypothesis by doing the same thing for 2 oranges, 2 horses, etc. and confirm it still works. This is now a "law". Now, we get an idea that it also may work for 3 apples and 2 apples. We test that too. Indeed 3+2=5. This whole counting system or "addition" now becomes a "theory".
Okay, back on topic guys ...
-
RightClawSouth
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:15 am
I wonder if we need to do what most forums on any topic do and have a specific "Politics" forum somewhere down near the end of the forum list. 
I admit I'm a little worried, I don't want our lovely little community to be fractured by politics which, frankly, nobody can really do anything about anyway. (EDIT: actually, I guess "Future issues" covers it pretty nicely )
And nobody's even mentioned Ron Paul yet
I admit I'm a little worried, I don't want our lovely little community to be fractured by politics which, frankly, nobody can really do anything about anyway. (EDIT: actually, I guess "Future issues" covers it pretty nicely
)And nobody's even mentioned Ron Paul yet
-
RightClawSouth
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:15 am
@ Jacob
Layman: fact=truth
Right on the head. Which is why I knew my definition was not in line with Chad's.
I also love the new forum name! The only downside is that it still get's pushed to the top with most of the other "nice atmosphere" topics. Any way to make this and future issues in a seperate area so people don't have to read the heat while going through the forums?
@ Chad
I was enjoying our discussion. Feel free to start a new thread now that we have a heading for it:)
I am pretty sure I am the minority on our discussion anyway. I don't take myself too seriously no matter how my posts come across. I just love all the topics most people try to avoid!
Layman: fact=truth
Right on the head. Which is why I knew my definition was not in line with Chad's.
I also love the new forum name! The only downside is that it still get's pushed to the top with most of the other "nice atmosphere" topics. Any way to make this and future issues in a seperate area so people don't have to read the heat while going through the forums?
@ Chad
I was enjoying our discussion. Feel free to start a new thread now that we have a heading for it:)
I am pretty sure I am the minority on our discussion anyway. I don't take myself too seriously no matter how my posts come across. I just love all the topics most people try to avoid!
Wow Jacob - Bertrand and Russel quote!
@TheDude - you should never use 2+2=4 and say "fact", Jacob is right. It is actually very, very difficult to prove, and famously so. 1+1=2 is significantly easier to prove, as 1 and 2s are cardinal.
But, to throw even more shadow on 2+2=4 as fact and to throw more mincing about word choice.
In math, when Russel and Bertrand developed Principa Mathematica, a theorem was held true if it was consistent based on a set of "axioms" (rules). That is unlike science, there was no such notion as "error rates" True = true in pure math logic. A theory is true if it can be consistently deduced from the axioms.
That is... until Godel came along and blew up the world of math in the 1930s.
Here is basically what Godel said...
"The laws of math can be consistent, or they can be complete. But not both."
And
"no formal system can be used to prove its own consistency"
He prooved both of these points mathematically and basically dropped a big bomb on the many years of work put into Principia Mathematica.
So effectively, any higher order math system... such as calculus used in physics... can either:
-proof things within a limited realm
-or they can proof nothing because they are inconsistent
While this seems dumb in view of 1+1=2, or 2+2=4... it is very relevant at very large numbers and how they are applied in astrophysics, theories of evolution, etc. It'd be very hard to rely on the math of man to understand what happened billions of years ago. Its our math theories are simply not consistent or complete.
@TheDude - you should never use 2+2=4 and say "fact", Jacob is right. It is actually very, very difficult to prove, and famously so. 1+1=2 is significantly easier to prove, as 1 and 2s are cardinal.
But, to throw even more shadow on 2+2=4 as fact and to throw more mincing about word choice.
In math, when Russel and Bertrand developed Principa Mathematica, a theorem was held true if it was consistent based on a set of "axioms" (rules). That is unlike science, there was no such notion as "error rates" True = true in pure math logic. A theory is true if it can be consistently deduced from the axioms.
That is... until Godel came along and blew up the world of math in the 1930s.
Here is basically what Godel said...
"The laws of math can be consistent, or they can be complete. But not both."
And
"no formal system can be used to prove its own consistency"
He prooved both of these points mathematically and basically dropped a big bomb on the many years of work put into Principia Mathematica.
So effectively, any higher order math system... such as calculus used in physics... can either:
-proof things within a limited realm
-or they can proof nothing because they are inconsistent
While this seems dumb in view of 1+1=2, or 2+2=4... it is very relevant at very large numbers and how they are applied in astrophysics, theories of evolution, etc. It'd be very hard to rely on the math of man to understand what happened billions of years ago. Its our math theories are simply not consistent or complete.
@dpmorel
Very interesting! You are making me glad I chose not to look at things in terms of scientific definitions because I am learning new things.
But prove smove:) Let anyone talk long enough and I guess anything can be cast in a light of error. I think arguments against 2+2=4 are pretty weak (for the layman), but maybe I should have used 1=1 or something even more vague. I won't be contemplating this too much, just like I don't ponder what the word "is" is. I have pretty poor grammar abilities as it is.
All this just has me realizing just how few things we have or can establish as laws.
Very interesting! You are making me glad I chose not to look at things in terms of scientific definitions because I am learning new things.
But prove smove:) Let anyone talk long enough and I guess anything can be cast in a light of error. I think arguments against 2+2=4 are pretty weak (for the layman), but maybe I should have used 1=1 or something even more vague. I won't be contemplating this too much, just like I don't ponder what the word "is" is. I have pretty poor grammar abilities as it is.
All this just has me realizing just how few things we have or can establish as laws.
"A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election."
-- Bill Vaughan
I think people would probably be more motivated to vote if:
- There were more political parties
- The corporate world didn't "own" the political world. One way to tackle this is outlawing donations to politicians & parties.
Such fundamental changes don't happen easily. But there's a risk of major unhappiness between the elections of November 2010 and those of 2012, and changes may become unavoidable. Hopefully for the best and in a controlled way. Yeah I'm naive like that.
Here's another nice quote :-7
"Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
-- Joseph Stalin
-- Bill Vaughan
I think people would probably be more motivated to vote if:
- There were more political parties
- The corporate world didn't "own" the political world. One way to tackle this is outlawing donations to politicians & parties.
Such fundamental changes don't happen easily. But there's a risk of major unhappiness between the elections of November 2010 and those of 2012, and changes may become unavoidable. Hopefully for the best and in a controlled way. Yeah I'm naive like that.
Here's another nice quote :-7
"Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
-- Joseph Stalin
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15995
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Well, there was the issue of the 2000 count and recount in Florida.
Another thing to do is to remove the winner takes all for the electoral college. There's a law of sociology that says that this ultimately creates a two-party system. A corollary of popularization then is that those two parties necessarily must be pretty close too. Instead distribute the electoral votes according to the popular votes e.g. if the popular vote in a state is 71/29, make the electoral votes 71/29 instead of 100/0. This would make it viable to vote for third parties.
Another thing to do is to remove the winner takes all for the electoral college. There's a law of sociology that says that this ultimately creates a two-party system. A corollary of popularization then is that those two parties necessarily must be pretty close too. Instead distribute the electoral votes according to the popular votes e.g. if the popular vote in a state is 71/29, make the electoral votes 71/29 instead of 100/0. This would make it viable to vote for third parties.
More parties <> more democracy. Be very careful what you ask for. Minority governments are NOT very effective. Most multi-party systems tend toward minority governments over time.
The US system actually is probably more democratic than most multi-party systems over history as whipping has traditionally not been used due to regional politics. Until now. In some senses Mitch McConnell is one of the greatest party whips of all times, its amazing how successful he has been at keeping the party voting together. The senate are full of rich, powerful, big-ego people. Getting them to do what they are told is non-trivial.
The US system actually is probably more democratic than most multi-party systems over history as whipping has traditionally not been used due to regional politics. Until now. In some senses Mitch McConnell is one of the greatest party whips of all times, its amazing how successful he has been at keeping the party voting together. The senate are full of rich, powerful, big-ego people. Getting them to do what they are told is non-trivial.