Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Truth is the final goal of debate. At the highest level, truth comes in the form of mathematics; it is contrary to disbelieve a proof after verifying its steps. Beneath that we have science, which endeavors to accurately predict future events–in an effort to improve this predictive ability, it has employed the tools of mathematics and statistics.

I don’t believe this imposition of mathematics to be a higher level of truth than science is accurate.

Mathematics deals solely with deductive reasoning, ie from agreed axioms, all other mathematical truth is derived using deduction – there is no ‘real world’ getting in the way of a good mathematical argument. This generally means mathematical proofs are, as you say, truthful – but so are all other arguments, be they scientific, philosophical or moral if the logic employed is deductive. What upsets the apple cart is that outside of mathematics, the axioms are not self-evident but are based on current theory regarding observed reality. Science and Philosophy are very much interested in the real world, however a fundamental assumption has to be made about any observation made in this space – the assumption that whatever we see in Nature as recurring patterns will continue to recur in the future. Mathematicians don’t have to deal with this problem, so in a sense, they are dealing with a simpler beast. My own take is that Mathematics and Science address two different domains – the former deals with mental abstractions and needs to make no reference to the physical world, while the latter deals with a physical world of which we will always (thankfully) have an imperfect knowledge. Mathematics is informed by the mind, Science is informed by the senses.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Why aren’t we making an effort to say “Traditional Rape” and “Lesser Rapes” when we talk about that subject?

Why aren’t we refusing to use the words, “Gender & Partner?”

And why are we still using words like “Abortion on Demand, instead of Birthcontrol Abortion.”

It realy is quite easy to do, and if we couple it with proper use of the dialectic and Critical Theory, to target the “base” of this house of cards, imagine how far ahead of the game we will be 5 years from now, just for merely writing the same articles and comments we do already, except paying attention to our usage of language?

The internet is our medium, and we are language warriors.

What we really have to do is decide on a few words that we agree to use, and then basically, just start saying them over and over and over again.

I’ve written about this in a few places here at the Spearhead:

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/11/01/womens-rape-fantasies-the-deepest-taboo/#comment-7614

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/16/the-menace-of-cultural-marxism/#comment-3427

And I’ve written out a relatively detailed course of action, in five separate pieces, on my blog, which can be found here:

http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/09/achilles-heel.html

It’s the old saw about not winning the battles, but winning the war.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Surely this is an absurdity from any rational perspective, and some future generation will realize it as such and shake its collective head at how our era engaged in collective hoodwinking about the underlying realities of what an abortion actually is.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@1Scattered I think you mean foetus. And no, I don’t care about the right to life of a parasite that lives inside me, drains my nutrients without permission, and causes huge risk to my life. I’ll decide when I risk my life to procreate, thank you. Why don’t you care about my right to life?

Notice the use of the words ‘parasite’, ‘foetus’ as well as a lot of other meaningless statements. A reasonable person can see that parasite, foetus and human are not necessary mutually exclusive.

Whats sad is that most people will fall for these arguments hook, line and sinker.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

by which I I will assume you mean something resembling symbolic logic

I offer the distinction because what philosophers typically study as symbolic logic is often only tangentially related to what mathematicians study as symbolic logic.

If math has the appearance of offering “the truth,” I would posit that this is merely a symptom of math’s much higher degree of precision when compared to a language that is meant to convey many more things.

I don’t agree. Mathematics offers a greater degree of truth not just because of how it is formulated, but because of what is being formulated. Mathematical truth is no more than the assertion that you can get from a list of premises to a conclusion using finitely many manipulations of finitely many strings of finite length–disbelief of a mathematical assertion in the face of a proof wherein you have verified each individual step is contradictory, in a way that occurs in no other field.

There are some concepts in math that, at least in some cases, do not seem to have any bearing on reality at all – imaginary numbers, the concept of infinity…

Ignoring for a moment the fact that these concepts do indeed have bearing on reality (if we accept science as itself being accurate), we are left with the fact that mathematics limits what can be real, but does not specify what is real amongst the remaining possibilities. A world wherein 1+1=3 is impossible, but math does not enable me to predict whether you car is red or blue (or some other color, or even if your car exists, or even if you exist…or even if I exist, but that is a matter I will have to take up with Descartes).

Also, as this article demonstrates, unyielding belief in the power of mathematics can be just as foolish as unyielding belief in the power of standard language.

On the contrary, it demonstrates that unyielding belief in the correctness of a mathematical model is foolish. Unyielding belief in theoretical mathematics is fundamentally warranted (recognizing that there is a possibility of human error in the verification of mathematical proof; but absent specific evidence, you cannot continue to believe a conclusion does not follow from given premises after verifying a proof).

When I say people should seek to build understanding, I mean more than pay lip service to the idea.

The basic idea I was trying to get at here was that consensus is not the final goal of debate, and never has been. Truth is the final goal of debate. At the highest level, truth comes in the form of mathematics; it is contrary to disbelieve a proof after verifying its steps. Beneath that we have science, which endeavors to accurately predict future events–in an effort to improve this predictive ability, it has employed the tools of mathematics and statistics.

Consensus behind a falsehood is foolish; in particular, it is not in general preferable to unanimity less a single person behind that falsehood, and one person believing the truth on the relevant matter–but it will often be endorsed by someone who has something to gain from this result. For this reason it is common to find that the appeals for consensus and understanding come most often from those who have something to gain from continued belief in a lie. Feminists are only a topical example of this.

As a disbeliever in the existence of truth, I understand that consensus is the next-best purpose for debate that you can fall back upon. But you should understand that you have fallen into a den of theives.

Like or Dislike: 0  0