My best friend since high school teaches math at UWF. He said any time someone claims that 2+2=5 or 2+2=3 and that they can prove it, they’re relying on rounding errors or incorrect order of operations, or some other sleight of hand to trick the rubes. It’s a prank they play on first year business majors and engineers.
"Most scientists know better than to use the word "proof/prove" with the exception of mathematical theories. The standard for "proof" is so high that only mathematics can be "proven"."
Like this? youtube. com/watch?v=Bfq5kju627c
Sure Mickey.
I know plenty. But I am in that world.
I also know a lot of people who aren't.
That's part of being a well rounded individual...
But Im sure you do huh tbr? Hell you kn ow everything else, LMAO.
Re: the word "proof".
Most scientists know better than to use the word "proof/prove" with the exception of mathematical theories. The standard for "proof" is so high that only mathematics can be "proven".
If I were to drop a feather and a dime in a vacuum and accurately document their simultaneous fall in accordance with Newton's gravitational theory, this is not "proof". It's supporting evidence. I wouldn't say it "proves" gravity; I'd say it demonstrates it.
"Their belief and trust in science is FAITH"
It is obvious that the OP and Wayne don't really know anyone who is actually a scientist and "does" science.
Your opinion is a slave to the MSM that you rail so vociferously about...
“Three of you have responded with what look like personal attacks.”
If someone comes in here and says:
"Taco! Que Pasa el toro chimichanga!" and claims that they are speaking Spanish...
...and actually BELIEVES that they understand Spanish...
..is there really any way for anyone to explain to such a delusional person that they do not, in fact, speak Spanish that they wouldn't perceive as a personal attack?
"Their belief and trust in science is FAITH"
Science has hypothesis and experiments and results. Religion/belief uses what?
Science and medicine have produced equipment and medicines/surguries. Religion has created blind tithers and mega churches.
So true Rand K That is why I do not believe their bullshit, mainly behind who is pushing and funding it. Again lets look at the Fake Virus and the shots and who pushed and funded it. Thats all I needed to know it was all bullshit to fit a certain narrative.
Mickey
YES !!!! The rest are just sheep who will never listen!!
Reminds me of a true story a Catholic Priest Professor said to an entire class at Barry University in Miami.. after he went around the room and asked everyone what faith they were.. he said ref your faith and what you believe.. YOU ALL may be right as its a story handed down over the years!
Science.. look who funds it, who wants what results, and why and who gave them the money , etc. Well said Wayne and Andrew!
"What I see is that the large majority of people are not challenging science. When someone says, "trust the science" they are always using that to tell someone that does not agree with them to blindly agree with them."
Pure gold, Wayne, and look at the reaction.
Wayne,
"Ok, people generally consider religion to be based on faith. Religious people believe what their religious book says or what some leader of their church says. Most science type people are doing the same thing. Placing faith in another person or book that they consider an authoritative source. Especially most of the "trust the science" type people. That whole phrase is literally faith based. "Trust" is a form of faith"
Well said. I've had the argument with people over and over here. Their belief and trust in science is FAITH, and it's religious in nature, but they are incapable of seeing it. Try telling a Muslim or a Christian that they have faith in something that is a lie, the reaction you get from them is very similar to the "trust the science" person when you tell them that a scientist, or the scientists of a particular field, or the scientists employed by a corporate interest, are lying to them. They believe that spending a few years in a university learning a field of study automatically makes that person ethical and trustworthy.
“I'm not gonna really argue science BUTTT.... I've always believed that every scientific fact should be followed by the caveat. "until new information is discovered".
Wouldn’t that be trusting/following the science?
Translate it however you want.
“I'm not gonna really argue science BUTTT.... I've always believed that every scientific fact should be followed by the caveat.
"until new information is discovered".
Wouldn’t that be trusting/following the science?
But the thing is, all their information has been false for decades.
This is a persecution kink and I'm not consenting to be a part of it. Go find some other dom.
"until new information is discovered"
Bingo. That's science.
"I've always believed that every scientific fact should be followed by the caveat.
"until new information is discovered"."
And so does everyone who even kinda sorta understands science. Even with settled science, the unspoken corollary is "unless new information is discovered."
"Countless people "challenge" all religions constantly. Heck, based on your ridiculous claim, almost every libtard would have been killed or exiled long ago."
It's almost like nearly all of you went to the same school, one where they taught neither logic nor history. Nothing on civics either.
A "challenge" to a religion doesn't include some guys arguing in a bar that God doesn't exist or that Mormons are cultists. Instead it's the rise of a movement that challenges the established order or the existence of a group of people that do so merely by existing. Please see "Roman response to early Christians" and "the Inquisition." Also, "Spanish missionaries and American indigenous people." Also, "War on Christmas."
I'm not gonna really argue science BUTTT.... I've always believed that every scientific fact should be followed by the caveat.
"until new information is discovered".
Per Ion: "By killing or exiling anyone who challenged them."
Wow dude, you have made A LOT of ludicrous comments on here, but that may be the most ludicrous of them all. Countless people "challenge" all religions constantly. Heck, based on your ridiculous claim, almost every libtard would have been killed or exiled long ago.
Wayne, what you've done is no different than Mickey wandering in here to say that the US Marines killed FEMA workers in Hawaii and then expecting us to say, "Wow, that's astute" or providing evidence that he's wrong.
"Remember, my position is that science is a religion, so anything you say about religion applies to science since it is a religion."
Your hypothesis, which you have offered no proof for, is that science is a religion. All you've done is make an unsubstantiated claim and demanded that everyone prove you're wrong.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence, and you've offered no evidence.
"Religions have survived challenges for 1000's of years."
By killing or exiling anyone who challenged them.
I could buy a ticket to Paris today. I have frequent flyer miles enough to fly there and back.
Again, these are the kind of ridiculous statements that show you aren't serious. You're just being a contrarian.
And you think that because a few trolls on Reddit are arguing over whether 2+2=4 that there's actually some schism in mathematics between the people who think it's true and the people who think it's false is, again, just silly. If you really think 2+2 may not actually be 4, you shouldn't be working with computers, because my Casio calculator from 1995 knows better.
Put two apples on your countertop. Put two more apples on your countertop. Count your apples. Every time you do that, the total is going to be four apples.
