The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Reaver197]

Ah, yeah. I think the traffic is bringing the blog down or something, or it got removed. The whole thing is posted in the comment section. If you search by "top" it should be there.

Sorry about that.

 

[Deleted member]

Why would I want to work non-exact when I don't have to?
The only reason the real world requires approximations is because you can't have things like steel bars with thickness Sqrt(2) mm.


And there is a difference between "can't be applied" and "won't be applied". A lot of mathematical topics have real world applications, yes. but that doesn't mean the mathematician is necessarily interested in them.
for example, let's looks at the millennium problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems

now I'm not going over them one by one, but 3 of the 7 are pure mathematics with no application. the most famous one being the (proven) poincare conjecture (I suppose I should say theorem now), which deals with 4-dimensional spheres.

And btw I'm very well aware how all the subjects I follow are (or at least could) be applied irl.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Came across this story, and thought it particularly poignant and telling of current state of things in America.

http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/dmzok/censorship_at_its_finest_one_teachers_story_on/

God ****ing dammit america. GOD. ****ING. DAMMIT.

 

[Sucumbio]

Page not found
Sorry, the page you were looking for in the blog For the Love of YA (Reviews & Author Interviews) does not exist.

LOL! On an article about censorship, no less. I believe we call this IRONY!!!

Then again it could just be a malfunction of the link, but still... heh.

 

[Lythium]

Original text was archived here: http://aramzs.amplify.com/2010/10/0...ant-parents-are-destroying-quality-education/

 

[Sucumbio]

why, thank you dear. *reads*

EDIT:

My goodness, what an ordeal. As an aspiring English teacher this makes me wonder just how much teachers can get away with. The teacher was obviously not expecting this kind of reaction... and I live in the DEEP south, not Kentucky, Mississippi. Oh lawd! I guess I can rule out any gay/lesbian literature.

Of course now I want to read the book that started the whole debacle so that I can judge for myself just how inappropriate it was.

I read some of the blogs regarding the incident, one stood out:

But my son has better things to do than "explore the world of children sexually abusing other children" during our literature time together.

I joined the forum so I could respond to the poster, but there's a waiting period.

Meanwhile, my thoughts on this poster's comment boil down to "like what?" She's a home-school mother, which I find to be a problematic method of teaching to begin with. But that comment just seems fairly ignorant. Just about everyone on that board agrees with the decision to ban the book(s).

 

[blazedaces]

Pretty amazing find, I emailed that story to quite a few friends. Thanks for sharing it.

Why would I want to work non-exact when I don't have to?
The only reason the real world requires approximations is because you can't have things like steel bars with thickness Sqrt(2) mm.

What's the difference again I ask? You use whatever works best for you. In probability it's a lot easier to compare decimals than comparing fractions. 60/456 compared to 1/9, which is greater? It's easier to compare the probabilities in decimal form. And if the probability involve exponential and other irrational functions, much easier to use approximations. There are always benefits, no one system works all the time.

And there is a difference between "can't be applied" and "won't be applied". A lot of mathematical topics have real world applications, yes. but that doesn't mean the mathematician is necessarily interested in them.
for example, let's looks at the millennium problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems

now I'm not going over them one by one, but 3 of the 7 are pure mathematics with no application. the most famous one being the (proven) poincare conjecture (I suppose I should say theorem now), which deals with 4-dimensional spheres.

And btw I'm very well aware how all the subjects I follow are (or at least could) be applied irl.

In my opinion, the only value math has is its applications to the real world. The only reason I personally wouldn't tell mathematicians not to concern themselves with those subjects is because as you said, even if it isn't obvious at the moment the information found by studying those problems could lead to real-world applications.

But I understand that's my opinion and many would disagree with me.

-blazed

 

[adumbrodeus]

Blaz...

You're making me rage so hard right now.



Now then, understand that in math, we define a framework, and then when working in that framework we discover the implications of said framework. Fractions were one such defined framework, but can you say the ability to represent division in that fashion isn't useful?


Why do we define new frameworks? Because they allow us to work with things that were impossible for us to work with before, and ultimately allow us to better describe what exists in a mathematical fashion. In other words, it's useful.


That's why we switched from the integer set to the real number set, and that's why the complex number set exists, (even though this might not have been the original objective) to describe increasingly complex phenomenon.


I'll leave you with one final thing, a site explaining the real world uses of imaginary and complex numbers, or at least a lot of them.

 

[blazedaces]

Blaz...

You're making me rage so hard right now.



Now then, understand that in math, we define a framework, and then when working in that framework we discover the implications of said framework. Fractions were one such defined framework, but can you say the ability to represent division in that fashion isn't useful?


Why do we define new frameworks? Because they allow us to work with things that were impossible for us to work with before, and ultimately allow us to better describe what exists in a mathematical fashion. In other words, it's useful.


That's why we switched from the integer set to the real number set, and that's why the complex number set exists, (even though this might not have been the original objective) to describe increasingly complex phenomenon.


I'll leave you with one final thing, a site explaining the real world uses of imaginary and complex numbers, or at least a lot of them.

Listen guys, maybe I'm not communicating myself correctly.

I AM an engineer. I know more than most people how incredibly useful imaginary numbers are in the real world. But you're agreeing with me even more. The imaginary domain is just a "framework" we use to represent numbers differently. That's my point. Currently, we don't teach children this fact.

That's what the imaginary domain is... a "framework" which helps us to visualize and utilize certain numbers in a way we can not do in the "real" domain. That's all it is... there's nothing super special about it. What is i? It's a constant! It does not change in time. We all know the word "imaginary" is a misnomer.

Let's move on, I feel this subject has run its course...

-blazed

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=robot-be-good

The article I said I would post latter, but...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=in-science-we-trust-poll

The second article I find really interesting possibly thread worthy, but I am not certain. What do you guys think? Do we put to much trust in scientists?

 

[Reaver197]

You have to realize that the second article's results were from a poll of Scientific American and Nature readers, not the general public, so that's something to keep in mind when discussing it.

Scientists are just people, so they are subject to all the same shortcomings and biases that people can and will have. However, I believe that overall, due to the nature of the scientific method, scientists will tend to be more self-correcting and accurate than any other profession or job type.

Edit: Also found an interesting video about how a town in England tested turning off their stop lights for regulating a normally heavily congested intersection, and just letting the drivers sort it out for themselves. It was so successful at cutting down congestion and wait time, they now have the lights permanently off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0meiActlU

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

It's very interesting. It's very counter-inutitive, but it seems to work. I'm not sure if it should be done for all intersections, but it should be done for many.

 

[GoldShadow]

That's the same approach a lot of developing countries use. And by "a lot," I mean India, since that's the only one where I've really personally seen it (actually, they have traffic lights, which are entirely ignored). I'm sure many other countries have the same system, though. Probably not intentional as in that example, however.

 

[rvkevin]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448747,00.html

Some cities in Europe also did it.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You have to realize that the second article's results were from a poll of Scientific American and Nature readers, not the general public, so that's something to keep in mind when discussing it.

I KNEW something felt off. America is not that sane.

 

[Reaver197]

I KNEW something felt off. America is not that sane.

Oh, how I wish it was.

Take solace in the fact that at least the scientifically savvy Americans tend to have a better outlook on science than the other countries.

 

[Aesir]

The Republican party proves how not sane we are.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[Sucumbio]

PG always seems more active. Your point is actually the basis behind the idea that the PG should be merged with the DH (e.g. eliminated), but "activity" should not be confused with "quality" and this is the only real reason that it has remained a sub-forum. Also as a DH member you are free to post in the PG if you see a coaching opportunity or an otherwise obvious mistake that someone is making. What we do ask is that you refrain from holding actual debates with other DH members. If you see a topic that interests you, you may re-create here in the DH.

 

[Aesir]

Nah, I'll stick to harassing PGers

 

[Deleted member]

could we not just change it so that only debaters can make threads and new members can only post in treads?

 

[blazedaces]

could we not just change it so that only debaters can make threads and new members can only post in treads?

Wouldn't that just result in no one caring about posting? Not many people make threads to begin with... we would also end up with very few topics...

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well now a few new topics have come up, pretty interesting ones, so yay!

Was there a conclusion to the imaginary numbers debate?

Honestly I think it was a semantic misunderstanding.

 

[Sucumbio]

could we not just change it so that only debaters can make threads and new members can only post in treads?

One of the things PG's -should- practice is making successful debate topics. Though this point isn't stressed (enough imho) you can tell a "good" topic from a "fair" topic pretty quickly. Good topics last a while, or at least engage in a vigorous debate. Fair topics tend to be more ... opinion-based with less emphasis on research and citation and more on cognition. Some could say this is even a problem in the DH but from my eyes any activity is better than none.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I was wondering if there would be room for a thread on voluntary euthanasia. Would such a thread be a good idea?

I'm interested in the idea, not because I want to do it, but because it seems like a controversial issue that no-one in here has really talked about (at least recently).

 

[Sucumbio]

I'm interested in the idea, not because I want to do it, but because it seems like a controversial issue that no-one in here has really talked about (at least recently).

Ya SURE you don't want to do it
I needed that, thanks man... rough night at work.

Yeah go for it! I'll participate, though I can tell you right now I think it's perfectly fine to both choose it as an option, and to be a practitioner like Dr. Death.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Ya SURE you don't want to do it
I needed that, thanks man... rough night at work.

Yeah go for it! I'll participate, though I can tell you right now I think it's perfectly fine to both choose it as an option, and to be a practitioner like Dr. Death.

I meant that I wasn't suicidal thoughts. I should get a post up soon.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

[color=c65f6]Just a couple of questions:

Would you consider "appeal to fallacies" a logical fallacy?

What about "appeal to the bible (using the bible to prove something)"?[/color]

 

[rvkevin]

[color=c65f6]Just a couple of questions:

Would you consider "appeal to fallacies" a logical fallacy?

What about "appeal to the bible (using the bible to prove something)"?[/color]

1. Yes. Stating a logical fallacy that is not a relevant objection would basically be a straw man fallacy.

2. You would need to establish its veracity. Otherwise, it would be an appeal to authority. Other fallacies could come into play depending on the claim (i.e. circular reasoning, the Bible shows that the Bible is correct)

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

1. Yes. Stating a logical fallacy that is not a relevant objection would basically be a straw man fallacy.

2. You would need to establish its veracity. Otherwise, it would be an appeal to authority. Other fallacies could come into play depending on the claim (i.e. circular reasoning, the Bible shows that the Bible is correct)

The latter is circular. I utterly hate it. The sad thing is, that people actually subscribe to this.

 

[Dre89]

Only fideists and uneducated theists appeal the Bible fallaciously.

What's more annoying are all the atheists here who think theology is based off that fallacy.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I know you're stealth insulting me, dre.

Name an example of where it isn't.

 

[Reaver197]

I have yet to find that to not be the case, especially when it comes to deciding which religion their "god" comes from, or finds attributes from (like there being only one, or many, for example).

Also, to quote smbc: "Can god create a degree so useless even he can't get a job with it?"

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I have yet to find that to not be the case, especially when it comes to deciding which religion their "god" comes from, or finds attributes from (like there being only one, or many, for example).

Also, to quote smbc: "Can god create a degree so useless even he can't get a job with it?"

Are you talki to dre, or me?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I have yet to find that to not be the case, especially when it comes to deciding which religion their "god" comes from, or finds attributes from (like there being only one, or many, for example).

Also, to quote smbc: "Can god create a degree so useless even he can't get a job with it?"

<3 SMBC so much.

I generally, however, will take issue to historical sources backing things that are scientifically impossible. ESPECIALLY when you consider that the entire next age was marked by a ridiculously brutal christian purges and the inquisition.

 

[Dre89]

I know you're stealth insulting me, dre.

Name an example of where it isn't.

Um perhaps all of Catholic philosophy?

You do know the difference between Catholic philosophy and theology right?

You shouldn't be shifting the burden of proof onto me anyway, because you were the one who made the initial claim.

If you're going to say Catholics commit the circular Bible fallacy, show evidence of it.

If making the initial statement shifts the BoP onto the opposition, then I can just say "God exists" and then the BoP would on you to prove me wrong, but that's obviously not how it works.

I love how atheists always shift the BoP onto theists, even when they make the initial attack, because they haven't actually studied philosophy or theology, so they can't cite examples.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

You shouldn't be shifting the burden of proof onto me anyway, because you were the one who made the initial claim.

If you're going to say Catholics commit the circular Bible fallacy, show evidence of it.

I do agree with Dre here if we make the claim we need to back it up.
Though a lot of catholics I have meet do commit that fallacy to say the general statement "Catholics commit the circular Bible fallacy" would be a fallacy in its self (Proof by example I do believe, I would have to look it up, it has been awhile.)

If making the initial statement shifts the BoP onto the opposition, then I can just say "God exists" and then the BoP would on you to prove me wrong, but that's obviously not how it works.

I agree.

I love how atheists always shift the BoP onto theists, even when they make the initial attack, because they haven't actually studied philosophy or theology, so they can't cite examples.

Um...That is the exact same fallacy that Dark Horse made in the post you responded to.

 

[Dre89]

IUm...That is the exact same fallacy that Dark Horse made in the post you responded to.

Sorry I don't understand what you're saying here.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Sorry I don't understand what you're saying here.

He says that catholics commit the circle fallacy which is would be this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example . You are saying how you love that atheist love shoving the burden of proof away which though a lot of them do, not all of them so you have committed the same fallacy.