Search results

Fell asleep at the wheel. Had to be the most boring intro of any MMO I've played in recent history. A lot of cringeworthy dialogue you're forced to sit through. Optimization is...not good to say the least.

Just so everyone knows, all episodes of all Star Trek series are available on hulu now for free till the 31st. If you want to get a marathon in on any series you don't have/isn't available to you through your streamer of choice, now's a good time. http://www.hulu.com/browse/picks/star-trek

Except not. It's not what I've done and axioms are starting points of reasoning taken to be self-evident. You highlighted things that pertain directly to modern mathematics and modern mathematics only, and kudos, but we're talking about science. The other definitions I've fucking pasted have...

Hang on, you think axioms are proven? You think I need a dictionary? "Axiomatic means, "a proposition that is not capable of being proven nor disproven; its truth is (widely) assumed or believed to be self-evident"." You keep talking about "my" definition of induction in science. Here is...

Oh those proofs didn't use axioms? Really now. What was the starting point of reasoning then? Or alternatively you don't think it was used as an axiom for a thousand years? ahaha

You: "Please explain one scientific belief that is self-evident. Something that we believe where no other possibility could ever exist." Are you under the impression that every proof science employs does not start with axioms believed to be self-evident...

No I am not confusing anything. Geometry is a branch of science and the question was posed, TO ME, to point out a single scientific belief that is self-evident. I did so. Is your claim that there are no axioms in science? There are no self-evident starting points? And now you keep...

The parallel line postulate is believed to be self-evident and that no other possibility could exist: "It is true that, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely...

They are self evident truths. Here's the definition: "An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy." The scientific theroies themselves mustbegin...

WHAT!? Induction isn't proven at all you colossal idiot. Induction is a method of reasoning that sometimes yields invalid results! And I STILL am not talking about religion.

You're talking about theories. I'm not. I'm talking about axioms. You can't make a proof that begins with "The axiom of pairing is really a good guess," the proof would begin with "this is true because this is the application of the axiom of pairing, which is true" when the axiom has not been...

I still have not changed the definition of induction or defined it as something that it isn't. Remember the question? Does science employ induction? Yes. That's it. Then you come in DON'T YOU DARE MAKE THIS ABOUT FAITH OR RELIGION Okay man. We're not doing that. Thanks.

This is a definition problem. And that's okay. I say, when one accepts an axiom and builds on it without proof of the axiom, that's belief in the axiom. If we want to term that something different that's okay. But the initial axiom is unproven and we "accept" or "believe" or say "that's...

I don't know how many times I need to state that inductive reasoning is not blind faith. I'll do it again though Inductive reasoning isn't blind faith.

You are making wild assumptions. I didn't come here for any of those things--and I am perfectly calm. Thus, you using another conversation is the definition of irrelevant. You are assuming something because it continues to reinforce what you believe about another poster on the internet. You...

You are making these attacks personal for no reason. You quoted me from elsewhere and said I am making it about religion, but I have not: you brought that here. With this line of reasoning I could quote you from any point in your life and claim you were making it about a different subject...

So you're using yourself, bringing religion into the thread as evidence of me bringing religion into the thread? Nice. Further your assertion of the false dichotomy fallacy is again, out of context. Those are not all the possibilities I suggested--and if you'll fucking note, I said that a...

Certainly! Any axiom that claims itself as self-evident must be something one believes before building upon the axiom. The axiom is then, the criterion of truth. These axioms are things we choose--and of course, can change any time we so desire, to our credit. The Axiom of pairing is a...

No sir I have not. I have not been demonstrably proved to be anything. I have not brought faith into the discussion. I do not wish to prove that science involving blind faith exists. Elsewhere, I have engaged in thought exercises. These are not a contradiction to questions posed here...

I really wish you would stop making this about religion and faith when I have not mentioned them. I don't mean induction is faith, as I've stated. Stop frothing.

Let me type it again cause I think you missed it. Induction does not rely on faith. Religion does rely on faith. QED I am not making that argument.

In order to say that's what I'm arguing, I have to say, "This is what I am arguing." I am not. Let me make this easy for you. Induction does not rely on faith. Religion relies on faith.

Would it be easier if I used the term "one?" instead of "you and I" in thought exercises? You are taking it totally out of context.

Never said that either. Keep introducing religious topics though.

Nope. This is the danger of taking things out of context. Those are statements within a framework that don't show that I believe them, they are thought exercises. Read the next line. I believe in God because I observe that the universe has order and that it must have a starter, organizer...

I am not religious. I've stated this multiple times. I don't think science and religion are comparable in that respect. I was not brought here to this thread by that discussion, that is your assumption. I've made a post that asked questions and introduced a proof. You want to attack me...

LOL STOP SHITTING UP THE THREAD You are quoting different arguments, different topics, from a different thread. Please note that YOU KEEP BRINGING IT HERE. I am not making it about it but you are!

In order to make such a claim you have to prove that it is. I made a post that included 0 religion asking questions about science. You then chose to get dickhurt and make it a comparison between science and religion. I have made no quality statements about the results of the question or...

Top lels on this too man. Quit fucking bringing religion into this. This also sounds like...I don't know, exclusive to a couple religions and not applicable to many religions.

Fucking LOL! I'm not religious andnever claimed I was.

I am not in a debate. I asked two questions. Get over yourself. I got an A in logic too. Keep getting buttmad and making this about something it's not!

You: It's pretty clear you're trying to equate science and religion Me: No I'm not In a logical argument, which you are not engaging in, one lists various premises and conclusions. I posed questions as well. You have then taken them elsewhere. I am making no comparison, you are the one...

Me: This isn't about religion You: BLARGLE BLARGLE YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE THIS ABOUT RELIGION Kk, it is time to put it down I agree.

Nope. You're shitting up the thread with religion. I have not brought it, you have. And I again stated that there is no scientific proof for God, I don't know how much more clear I can be about the subject.

And requires 1.21 gigawatts of power.

No sir, I am not. You continue to make this about something I am not. I do however agree that science and religion attempt to answer fundamentally different questions. If you must read what I wrote elsewhere, you might note if reading was something you liked to do, that I outright stated...

A rational and logical response sir. Top lels. Except I am. I did comprehend it. I didn't ask DOES SCIENCE EMPLOY BOTH DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION I asked, does science employ induction? Yes, it does. That's it. That's all I asked. You said that I can't believe things without...

No sir I am not trying to equate anything with anything, religion is not a topic here. You seem to sidestep the question. Does science employ induction? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...entific_method This seems to show that it absolutely did and does. I am not using it in the...

I have some science questions. In another thread, there was some talk about induction, and beliefs in science. In fact, it was stated in one of the worst posts on the internet of the last decade that I "obviously don't understand how science works" because I think "science has induction" and...

This isn't game developer related but seems a good place to ask. I'm probably going to VMWorld this year, anyone else going?