>debating my professor on the scientific method >after

never happened, scientific method has a firm basis in occam's razor and immutable axioms you learned as a babby playing with blocks like 1+1=2

>>8676518
Define '1' and 'plus'

>>8676520
>Define 1
{{}}
>'plus'
'plus 1' mean the 'successor of', 'plus n' mean "the nth successor of"
one plus one is the successor of {{}} so {{{}}}

That's baby tier set theory, how old are you ?

>>8676565
Define '{{}}'

Define 'successor of'

Also,
>Set theory

LMAO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox?wprov=sfla1

>>8676576
>Define '{{}}'
The set containing {}

>Define 'successor of'
s(A)={A}

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox?wprov=sfla1
>naive set theory
Not set theory.

How old are you ? You didn't answer.

>>8676586
Define '{}' without relying on statements which require their own definition.

Define 's' and point to it in the world.

Define '=' without relying on statements which require their own definition or atomic structures which require mathematics in the first place.

>>8676594
>point to it in the world.
Ok cya, brainlet.

>>8676504
The entire point of the scientific method is to use rigor in your analysis so you don't mislead yourself about your results.

If you can come up with a better method, then share it.

In the end you run experiments and try to understand what the fuck just happened.

Always the same retarded shit in these threads. Also Russel's paradox only applies to the simplest definition of a set that is given in a basic math class: any collection of objects. It does not apply to more formal systems like ZFC. Here's a thought, your criticisms are undefined, therefore they are invalid.

>>8676576
holy shit

idk what's worse

being a downs syndrome "person" or someone like op with 80 iq but manages to be wrong about the most basic set theory

>>8676518
Can you prove occams razor or even explain why we should believe it?

>>8676504
>mfw OP is quite possibly a legitimate retard
This is why we have fundamental assumptions, that we exist, the world can be learnt about by observation, etc.

>define *
Based on the fundamental assumptions we can observe that <insert elementary explanation for * because OP is a pseudo-intellectual faggot who thinks he's so deep and thoughtful while in reality he's just a prick who should read some books on philosophy and logic before making obnoxious assertions and wasting everyone's time with his circle-jerk logic. If I were your professor I'd see if I could have you removed from my class, not humour your ignorant bullshit.>

>>8676598
So no answer?

Looks like I win :^)

>>8676600
Retarded reply. Define the 'method'.

>>8676614
So you admit that there is no such thing as the scientific method?

>>8676504
>Science AND Math

>.>

Math is the only truth.

>>8676626
Holy fuck, confirmed OP is sub-70 IQ.
Please go back into whatever hole your crawled out of.

>>8676628
>Math is the only truth

-1 x -1 = 1

>>8676632
Not an argument.

>>8676635
It read like a request to me.

>>8676644
It's "out of which you crawled" or "you crawled out" not "crawled out of", plebeian.

>>8676633
Yes....
YEAAAAAHSSSSSSSS

MAKE ME MEME
DADDY

>>8676649
Are you admitting that the concept of imaginary numbers not existing in the real world whilst supporting 1+1 as existing in the real world for its definition is incoherent and renders mathematics...null?

>>8676659
Admitting it?
Nah bruh.
You see. Mathematics works on the assumption that all truths are truths and all lies are lies. When one lies about a lie one tells the truth.

What doesn't rely on non-existent axioms and constant assumptions?

>>8676659
Imaginary numbers were created to allow for relativity in respect to measurement anyways.

>>8676662
I am lying right now.

Tell me whether the sentence above is a lie or truth :^)

>>8676666
1 + -1 = 0

You have achieved stasis.

>>8676594
What does this have to do with scientific method?

The scientific method as taught in grades cool is wrong. But who gives a shit. Most of the stuff you learn is wrong. Even most of the stuff you learn in undergrad is so dumbed down, it's wrong.

That doesn't mean the way science is done is wrong. It just means you took the brainlet view of the world literally.

>>8676659
>whilst supporting 1+1 as existing

what

>>8676663
>>8676665
>>8676674
>Taking a contextually dependent sentence and defining it in terms of mathematics

Every STEMtard should be gassed.

>>8676677
Define 'wrong'

Mustn't there exist a truth for something to be wrong?

>>8676674
-1=0=1+

>>8676680
Hermes Thrice Great.
Solomon Once Wise.
Guess the reason for Lucifers demise?

>>8676680

You didn't answer my question.

>>8676504
Daily reminder that reading philosophy in 2017 is a waste of resources and time.

File: images.duckduckgo.com.jpg (168KB, 730x1095px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 730x1095px

>>8676695
>waste of time

Do you not want tech priests?
Cause thats how you don't get tech priests.

:3

>>8676695
Daily reminder that all of the sciences besides engineering are literally a waste of time.

>>8676697
Sorry, I don't like weebshit, virgin

File: 20170213_224104.png (220KB, 1436x2545px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1436x2545px

>>8676695

Time and recources are meaningless

>>8676700
>.>

-Weebshit-

Warhammer 40k is EUROPEAN

>>8676611
>Can you prove occams razor or even explain why we should believe it?

>believe

>he believes instead of understands

typical brainlet detected

>>8676699
This is also true. I openly mock cucks studying humanities and dumb autists studying worthless shit like Physics.

>>8676701
Why? And who cares?

>>8676704
40kfags are worse than weebs.

>>8676701
Everything is meaningless.
Until you give it meaning.

>>8676705
Literally NOT an argument.

>>8676695
yep

>>8676688
Pride. Pride. Son of the Morning. He comes at the hour of prayer to heresy the word of the lord.

All jokes aside, my friends who study liberal arts are pretty dumb, and I feel embarrassed sometimes just being around them. In my country, we learn Calculus 3 material in secondary school. I gave some of my friends some basic integrals to evaluate, and they didn't even know what they were. It was so sad just seeing them find any excuse to not do the tasks, typical brainlet statements like
>oh man, I've seen this before... I think I can remember but I can't just be bothered
>Haha dude... I dont wanna do math right now
>XD DUDE ITS TRIVIAL (this is my most hated, where they try to be funny to play off their own low IQs)
you can see their palms sweating as I finally uncover their brainlet status. The thing about liberal arts students is that they're too prideful to admit that they're dumb. It was honestly a really pathetic sight seeing them squirm like that. They now tend to act slightly more submissive and they listen to me more, after embarrassing them like that.

>>8676709
>Literally NOT an argument.

>argument

>he argues instead of solves

when will this brainlet learn...

>>8676682
Define truth.

Truth in science, and maybe moreso in math is self consistent.

If you're looking for self evident truth,

/pol is that way ->

>>8676705
I can understand things without believing them. Occams razor is simple to understand but why should I accept it?

>>8676699
>any stem degree besides engineering is a waste of time.

Computer engineering
Any burger you want
8.25 starting

>>8676504
>hurrr define this
>durrr define that
First week philosophy student detected lmao

I don't know what's worse.
>Cringe idiot debating his professor in the middle of the class making everyone feeling uncomfortable.
>People replying to said idiot in this thread.

>>8676756
One idiot who shapes his head against the stones is a genius in training. The old ways of teaching have gone too soft. A hard hand is the way this generation gets to Atlantice 2.0

>>8676772
ooga booga brainlet

>>8676701
Placing 'it' in a set? Is what you mean?

>>8676518
>occams razor
Hmm, science doesn't trye to use the least amount of assumptions, it just let the empirical universe formulate and change those assumptions and results.

File: 665fd1d2-lion.jpg (42KB, 500x600px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x600px

>>8676504
This definitely happened.

File: no idea sulpher.png (193KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 400x300px

>>8676772
Before making to much fun of you, is English not your first language?

Can we all agree that anyone who argues/debates by asking people to keep defining things until they give up does not understand what an argument/debate is for?

>>8676594
Elaborate on "define"

>>8676852
>I can't justify my claims therefore the other guy is not debating

Really made me think

File: 1307247956297.jpg (13KB, 350x298px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 350x298px

>>8676504
Define ">", define "debating", define "my" define "professor", define "on", define "the", define "scientific", define "method"
Define "after", define "40", define "minutes", define "of", define "heated", define "debate", define "he", define "admits", define "that" define "it's", define "all", define "a", define "crock", define "of", define "shit", define "doesn't", define "exist", define "but", define "has", define "to", define "pretend", define "it", define "does", define "for", define "work", define "to", define "make", define "sense".

>>8676862
You're just making his point for him, lol

>>8676732
If you understood it, you would understand it. What is with your brainlets and this "believe" and "accept" retardation?

>>8676875
>we should just do things we understand

I guess I should stick a rod up your asshole then bud

>>8676565
One isn't the set of the empty set. That's just a model of one constructed in set theory, like saying one is a pebble because you're illustrating arithmetic using pebbles.

>Zero is the empty set. One is the set of zero (which is the empty set). Two is the set of one (the set of the empty set) and zero (the empty set).
>Zero is a cup with no pebbles in it. One is a cup with a pebble in it. Two is a cup with two pebbles in it.
Neither of these is true. They're just models.

One is a fundamental concept in arithmetic. You can illustrate it. You can model it. But you can't derive it.

>>8676865
No, im pointing out how fucking ridiculous his methodology is. Not only does it accomplish nothing nor generate new information, it is a fantastic waste of time and a total ceding that one is in waaaaay over his head with even the most simple concrete discussion.
Its not even a debate, a debate is an exchange of argumentation and rebuttal. Youre just a braindead if, in a conversation, you just say define a, define b, define c, define d, ... define y, define z, until the conversee is thouroughly convinced that youre mentally retarded.

>>8676902
>Not only does it accomplish nothing nor generate new information, it is a fantastic waste of time and a total ceding that one is in waaaaay over his head with even the most simple concrete discussion.

No argument to be found.

>Its not even a debate, a debate is an exchange of argumentation and rebuttal. Youre just a braindead if, in a conversation, you just say define a, define b, define c, define d, ... define y, define z, until the conversee is thouroughly convinced that youre mentally retarded.

All ad hominems either calling OP braindead, a retard or a "waste of time".

None of these are important points.

>>8676594
Define define

>>8676917
You've just conceded my point.

Thanks for agreeing with me!

There isn't any point presenting an argument to someone who won't listen.

>>8676518
>occam's razor and immutable axioms
Occams razor can be beaten by a 4 year old girl repeating the "why" question over and over again. Since no axiom is self evident it simply drops from the conversation.

File: 1343850476133.jpg (21KB, 308x461px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 308x461px

>>8676594
>mfw no one in this thread knows about Bertrand fucking Russel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica#Construction

>>8676862
huh? what is define?

>>8677007
I already linked to Russell and his paradox earlier in the thread, retard.

>>8676576

>>8676875
If you say that 2+2=5 I understand that too, it's just not true. Understanding what something means is different from believing that it's true

File: 1486857734108.jpg (46KB, 596x600px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 596x600px

>>8677109
That's not a very nice comment. Do you intend to fuck with me ?

File: 31.2.jpg (28KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x400px

>>8676504
Woooooooooo Maaaaaaaan
Everything is like subjective and we don't know anything...... woooooo

>>8676902
lol op is retarded, I'd bet a philosophy grad

>>8676576
Define go fuck yourself

>>8676504
>>>/lit/
It's where pseudo-philosophical quacks like you belong.

>>8676504
>mfw science and maths rely on non-existent axioms and constant assumptions

empiricism is a bitch

>>8676504
>he admits that it's all a crock of shit that doesn't exist but he has to pretend it does for his work to make sense

Lots of fakes out there, some so stupid they believe they're intelligent.

>>8677683
Popper is so out of date it is a joke. It is like driving around in a 1958 Buick.

Falsification by now is just a meme.

See e.g. AIXI, scientific method as applied Bayesian statistics.

>>8676594
>Define 's' and point to it in the world.
Define 'the world' and point to it in reality.

>>8677683
>popper

stopped reading right there, embarrassing

>>8677597
>>8677292
>>8677299
>>8677284
No argument to be found.

>>8677862
Thanks for making my point for me.

>>8676504
What's wrong with making assumptions and relying on axioms? In no way does that invalidate the scientific method. What's most important is to have a model for phenomena and to test predictions. The only reason to touch our axioms would be if they didn't make the correct predictions.

File: images (4).jpg (25KB, 376x391px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 376x391px

Humourous

>>8676518
>science is based on the axioms of mathematics
>1+1=2 is an axiom
Get out.

>>8677129
2+2=5 can be true if you define differently and operate under other axioms besides the generally agreed upon axioms

>>8676518
>immutable axioms
Triggered.

>>8676520
>>8676576
define "define"

File: hahafaggot.jpg (25KB, 160x213px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 160x213px

>>8676504
>he wants a trascendent explanation of reality instead of "just werks" science

>>8676576
it's a well known fact that every theory must rely on a set of axioms and undefined terms, it's baby tier math logic.
You can't define set. You just accept that it exists and you have a vague intuitive notion of it, then proceed to enunciate a fuckton of properties of a set so it becomes a useful notion.
Science is useful, period. No need to go to methaphysics. That's just renaissance-tier intellectual masturbation for pretentious faggots.