Then use your imagination and just imagine 0% is C. It does not really change anything.

It is not 33%, at all. That is just bad math. You can't combine similar values into one slot, as then you are no longer representing their proportion in the range of possible outcomes.

Let me give a clear example of what I mean.

You have 5 beads 4 of them are blue and one of them is green. If one is selected at random then you have a 4/5 chance of getting a blue and a 1/5 chance of getting a green. You can't group all the blue beads into one bead and claim you have a 1/2 chance of getting a blue and a 1/2 chance of getting a green as then you are no longer accounting for the fact that there are 4 blue and only one green.

That does not follow. Green and blue are both non-red so you add their probability together. Hey you don't have to believe me as this is basic math, just look it up.

I am glad you like it, I plan on posting more math conundrums. I feel that even if they can't be answered we can still learn from them.

Actually, there are four choices A, B, C and D. I get what they are driving at but the chance event is for four slots, which mean if we just look at the three values then 25 is 1/2 and 50 is 1/4 and 60 is 1/4. Saying they each have a 33% chance is suggesting they all have the same probability of being chosen by the chance event, which is not true; 25 has double the chance of being selected than the other values.

Furthermore just as 0% is not a selectable option neither is 33%.

Not everyone is worth engaging.

OK I'll try this one more time then that is it, as you don't seem to even comprehend what I am saying at all. Disagreeing is one thing, but not comprehending all together is quite another.

I fully understand what you are saying, that no matter what you pick you'll be wrong, but this is not an essay question where you get to put in your own answers, this is a multiple-choice question and you can only select from the available options and 0% is not in those available options, so it cannot be selected. If you can't understand that simple concept then you are not worth anymore of my time.

And the only reason you saw this as a circle is the same reason humans tend to think of time as linear, that is how your brain is processing the information, but it is not a circle.

I don't invest a lot to a response when the opening sentence to the post I am responding to is a hyperbole.

I think some of you are not getting it.

There is only one purposed chance event. It does not loop back on itself, it is not a circle and, as long as you don't say C), then you are not wrong until after the chance event, only then can you be wrong.

And now you are trying to force-feed us your epistemology — Akanthinos

You don't have to read my posts, or my threads; that was your choice and in no way did I coerce or force you to do so.

0% is not a possible outcome for the answer, therefore it cannot be chosen. Furthermore you are not wrong until after the chance event.

The idea that is it circular is just your perspective. There is a single chance event, one and only one. That is not a circle.

I considered the 0% version before making this thread, it really makes no difference at all as C is nothing but filler to give us four possible outcomes. The only reason to use the 0% version is to end moot arguments about how multiple choice questions work.

Also odds are not the same thing as chance.

The problem as I see is that the outcome changes the solution and I not sure if I would consider that truly circular.

0% is not a possible outcome, which means there is a 0% chance of it being 0%.

There are four possible outcomes. That part never changes. The fact that two of the possible outcomes contain the same values does not change that there are four possible outcomes. We just increase our chances of being correct if the desired outcome is 25% since it is two of the four possible outcomes.

If someone cannot differentiate between a lover of truth and a lover of opinion then they don't pay enough attention to the people around them. The titles don't mean anything greater then what they say, and I don't really have time to spoon feed those who are oblivious to such obvious details.

No, sorry didn't get any of that. — Pseudonym

I am OK with that.

So what is the difference between opinion and truth when it comes to philosophical propositions? How are you distinguishing the two? — Pseudonym

If you follow truth it heads your path, you seek to follow it. However, if you follow self then you seek to have truth follow you and you may end up trying on "philosophies" like they are going out of fashion.

Lovers of opinions over indulge in authoring their own realities from the self. Lovers of truth want to see beyond self, even if seeing beyond self becomes an impossible task their desire still pushes them towards the impossible and in doing so they become more.

There are no such things as "scientific truths". This was already addressed in this thread, I suggest you actually read it.

Well, at least there is some discussion happening, but I know it does not last, and people soon will be wrapping themselves deep in their own self.

I have been watching these forums for a very long time, and if you can't see what HexHammer was driving at then you are blind. His delivery method was in poor choice, but that does not mean he was wrong. There are two types here; lovers of opinion and lovers of truth and I know that the only way that will sink in is to give it time.

Then we can only do our best, which means being informed as much as we can.

I am sorry, but you are clearly nothing but a troll.

I disagree, I don't think it is important, and it only leads to people overly using quotation marks. What is important is that people put in the time and effort to actually become informed; beyond that I don't care how they choose to bridge that gap.

That part I don't care about, as it is a pointless argument. What's important is that people put in the effort to become informed.

Namely, if science is a method at arriving at 'truths' (as you seem to assert), — Posty McPostface

I clearly said just a few post up: "Science can never gives us truth, as it was never designed for such a task."

In science your aim should never be to find the truth, with such an approach you can lose objectivity. Things like philosophy and religion those are the tools to bridge that gap, science is there merely to inform.

I did not confuse facts and truth in the OP, and if you check there was a mistype in the post you just quoted; you were just faster on the reply than my ninja edit. Furthermore science is not a method that "optimally derives facts", it is a method for exploring the reality we find ourselves in.

I have no confusion of what facts are but I don't really feel like haggling over it. However, I would like to point out that facts are not the only contribution science makes. I am a student of statistics, a science that does not deal out facts. Facts are a result of science, but more importantly science is a method.

Science can never gives us truth, as it was never designed for such a task; however, it can give us the tools to narrow our aim closer to the mark. The rest is up to us.

That is not true, but you are just too busy trolling to see it. I am sorry my views offend you.

I agree with that.

Yet the only thing I have seen you post in this thread are insults. So I can only assume you don't want me to take you seriously.

Let me know when you figure out what truth is.

The only reason to snarl at science is because accepting it would challenge an indulgence into the subjective. If that is the case then you do not pursue truth, you pursue self.

I never said science was suited for every task.

I am sure you believe that distinction is important, however, I don't.

Why do some of you seem so resistance to the central role science plays in the pursuit of truth? Even the religious crowd sees its immense importance.

How so?

Some see the whole thing as the same path.

contributing nothing to philosophy itself — StreetlightX

Perhaps some just move on to science and make contributions that they feel are most important.

You really seem to be offended by this notion of lovers of opinions and lovers of truth. Worry you don't meet my standards?

I would like to point out that without science these forums would have never existed. Science is an essential tool.