Except this person says that math stuff proves their opinions about race/sex/etc. — Pfhorrest
How do you handle that? — Pfhorrest
If you study Wittgenstein, Kant, Russell, and the other newfangled philosophers, you'll realize what I am talking about. — god must be atheist
Put (fa) ./! (fa%x) . =. : (<f>) ./ ! {(y) .<£!(£, y), x] : (<f>) ./! {(ay) . </> ! (z, y), x],
where/! {(y) . <f> ! (z, y), x) is constructed as follows: wherever, in/! {<£ ! z, x},
a value of <j>, say <f> I a, occurs, substitute (y) . <£ ! (a, y), and develop by the
definitions at the 'beginning of #8. / ! {(ay) . <f> I (z, y), x] is similarly con-
structed. — Is Bertrand Russell readable?
PM — alcontali
I have never. Homophobic, yes. Cisgender? It has come to that? — god must be atheist
Trans actually does not mean across from; it means "transiting" or "having transited". — god must be atheist
Across, through, over, beyond, to or on the other side of, outside of. — https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trans-#English
If it meant "across from" then all women would be transgender males and vice versa. — god must be atheist
What's PM? — god must be atheist
This following an excerpt from Principia Mathematica (PM): — alcontali
What's PM? — god must be atheist
This following is an excerpt from Principia Mathematica (PM) — alcontali
This is clear. Was from the outset after it was explained to me by PFHorrest what PFHorrest thought cis meant.The thing that's being crossed or not is the assignment of gender at birth and present gender identity. Someone who identifies on the same side of the gender spectrum that they were assigned to at birth is cisgender, someone who identifies on the other side of it is transgender. — Pfhorrest
This following an excerpt from Principia Mathematica (PM):
— alcontali — Pfhorrest
About Russell: it's math, he is proving math with logic. That is not conceptualizing or conceptualization of philosophical ideas. It is a proof of a highly complex yet only logical system, of math. Failed or not. I don't think the answer to "is there a god" comparable to proving second degree five-unknown sets of differential equations with N degree of freedom.
And to my satisfaction, it was first Russell who answered the "is there a god or not" question. It took two or three easily understood, simple sentences. — god must be atheist
I don't think the answer to "is there a god" comparable to proving second degree five-unknown sets of differential equations with N degree of freedom. — god must be atheist
The naturals are assumed to be closed under a single-valued "successor" function S. For every natural number n, S(n) is a natural number. — Peano's 6th axiom of number theory
Now suppose that Russell, who you probably trust to be a lot better at you than math, claimed that he could mathematically prove, with math too complex to follow, an answer to that "is there a god or not" question, an answer that you're very confident, for other reasons, is the wrong one.
Do you dismiss Russell's incomprehensible argument as obscurantist nonsense, or accept the conclusion of his complex technical argument you're not smart enough to follow just on his word? — Pfhorrest
"Is there a god" is a question about an axiom. — alcontali
You might be inclined to say "ok well this person is smarter than me at math, but that doesn't make them right about race/sex/etc!" Except this person says that math stuff proves their opinions about race/sex/etc. And they give you a complicated argument involving lots of math that you can't really follow, that concludes that straight white cis men are objectively superior to people of other races, sexes, genders, and orientations. — Pfhorrest
No, this is an empirical question, not an axiomatic question. — god must be atheist
I don't think one can have a general principle, even for oneself. There certainly could be situations where someone's expertise in a field I do not consider relevent, actually has a strong argument that I dismiss or want to. There certainly could be situations where they are overextending themselves or just hallucinating. Smart people with or without specialized knowledge are capable of fooling themselves. That applies, therefore, to both me and them - unless my sense of myself as a smart person is an example of me fooling myself.And I'm not sure, generally speaking, on philosophical grounds, whether my impulse to dismiss them as spewing obscurantist nonsense is really a better response than just blindly taking their word on faith. I'm curious to know what other people here think about such things, on general principle. — Pfhorrest
It depends on the context. In religious law, it is an axiomatic belief. — alcontali
I think a lot of people are confused by the man-made league of intelligence. — Qwex
You don't need another human to clarify that you're intelligent; and that process is entirely unintelligent. — Qwex
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.