e.g. the lgbtq issue we had today, extremely complex societal dynamics, biology and psychology at play, some people just reduce it to it's components, "it's just virtue signaling", "it's against my beliefs so it's wrong", "you are spreading it"(edited)
It's not "just" anything, you can't just reduce complex issues like this, and if you try to you get people that argue insane positions like "pride parades encourage people to have sex on the streets"
It's not "just" anything, you can't just reduce complex issues like this, and if you try to you get people that argue insane positions like "pride parades encourage people to have sex on the streets"
There are many excellent research papers on the topic you can read if you are interested. Many scientists don't really agree with you on the "psychological disorder" part
how do you define whats intended by nature for humans
21:55
if u cant base on animals
21:55
i am not trying to debate. i dont have opinion on this. i only think
Learath2
There are many excellent research papers on the topic you can read if you are interested. Many scientists don't really agree with you on the "psychological disorder" part
Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge")[1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3][4]
A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1] The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and "The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact. Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are both historical facts. Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge.
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for it, or empirical contradiction ("falsify") of it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[1] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis).[2] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and from scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of the way nature behaves under certain conditions.
I cant proof that every science works on facts because i would have to prove it for every part of science wich is at least very very long, but u can proof im wrong just by givin one and only one example of a science that doesnt work with facts
the string theory is a mathematical model made of a set of axioms
22:03
An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.
n axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.[3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is a premise or starting point for reasoning.[4]
I was simply stating the definition. But I believe it to be a non- point.
Ryozuki
n axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.[3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is a premise or starting point for reasoning.[4]
In mathematics, the axiom of choice, or AC, is an axiom of set theory equivalent to the statement that a Cartesian product of a collection of non-empty sets is non-empty. Informally put, the axiom of choice says that given any collection of bins, each containing at least one object, it is possible to make a selection of exactly one object from e...
Learath2
at this rate we are going to end up discussing epistemology
@Learath2 AFAIK there's three formulations of the axiom of choice, one is obviously true, one is obviously false and one is so-so
22:12
the obviously true one is "the product set of any number of nonempty sets is nonempty"
22:13
the obviously false one is zorn's lemma (wikipedia): "Suppose a partially ordered set P has the property that every chain in P has an upper bound in P. Then the set P contains at least one maximal element."
22:14
ah no, got it wrong: The axiom of choice is obviously true, the well-ordering principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's lemma?[8]
Anyway, my point is that science works with theories and theories are falsifiable, thus science does not work in absolutes, thus scientific "fact" can change over time
"In mathematics, the well-ordering theorem, also known as Zermelo's theorem, states that every set can be well-ordered. A set X is well-ordered by a strict total order if every non-empty subset of X has a least element under the ordering."
First Incompleteness Theorem: "Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F." (Raatikainen 2015)
For each formal system F containing basic arithmetic, it is possible to canonically define a formula Cons(F) expressing the consistency of F. This formula expresses the property that "there does not exist a natural number coding a formal derivation within the system F whose conclusion is a syntactic contradiction." The syntactic contradiction is often taken to be "0=1", in which case Cons(F) states "there is no natural number that codes a derivation of '0=1' from the axioms of F."
The algorithm Basile created generates a 'book' by iterating every permutation of 29 characters: the 26 English letters, space, comma, and period.[8] Each book is marked by a coordinate, corresponding to its place on the hexagonal library (hexagon name, wall number, shelf number, and book name) so that every book can be found at the same place every time. The website can generate all possible pages of 3200 characters and allows users to choose among about 104677 potential pages of books.
XD c'est compliqué de réfléchir à minuit, mais bon au moins j'ai un peu compris
22:38
Ryozuki
The algorithm Basile created generates a 'book' by iterating every permutation of 29 characters: the 26 English letters, space, comma, and period.[8] Each book is marked by a coordinate, corresponding to its place on the hexagonal library (hexagon name, wall number, shelf number, and book name) so that every book can be found at the same place every time. The website can generate all possible pages of 3200 characters and allows users to choose among about 104677 potential pages of books.
the person sending the message will make it so the receiver will actually understand him, if he doesn't put the effort in, then he won't be expecting people to understand him, which comes down in the end to the message not being addressed to the people who don't understand
the person sending the message will make it so the receiver will actually understand him, if he doesn't put the effort in, then he won't be expecting people to understand him, which comes down in the end to the message not being addressed to the people who don't understand
️
2
1
it can't be proven from ZF
