Skeptics "reasoning" applied to mathematics


primemover

Recommended Posts

  • 2 years later...

. . .

Region of note, adding radio astronomy to microwave:

Is large cold spot a void? (no ordinary matter, no dark matter, only E-M radiation and dark energy)

http://webusers.astro.umn.edu/~larry/void/

http://webusers.astro.umn.edu/~larry/coldspot.pdf

Is large cold spot a texture? (a type of topological defect in spacetime, from Higgs field symmetry-breaking phase transition)

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0710/0710.5737v1.pdf

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/cosmos/viz/movi...exturesciam.pdf

. . .

The WMAP cold spot has been corroborated by Planck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Later on Hoyle showed the Cosmos to be expanding by detecting the red-shift of light from distant galaxies. Einstein realized his error based on Hoyle's findings.

Do you mean Hubble (not Hoyle)?

Ellen

___

Ooops. Yes. Hubble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came up with a parallel of the following skeptic argument and I think it brings to light in a greater contrast the lunacy of such "reasoning".

The argument is that since we cannot know of variables that may affect a situation we cannot be certain of the conclusion we have based on the variables we do know of.

The lunacy of this type of reasoning is exposed in greater contrast when you apply it to mathematics.

We know that 1+1=2. If a skeptic is to be consistent ( I know getting a skeptic to be consistent is far fetched but let's all just pretend for a moment.)..... if the skeptic is to be consistent, he must answer that 1+1 doesn't necessarily equal 2 because there may in fact be an unknown variable in the math problem that he doesn't know about. Such as 1x + 1 = 3. A rational person realizes that we now are no longer be dealing with 1+ 1 = 2 while the skeptic being unable to conceptualize higher than a lobotimized cock roach considers this proof that we can't be certain of anything.

1 + 1 =.2 by definition (assuming Peano Arithmetic). Every integer has a successor. 2 is the successor of 1. It can be shown by induction that

n + 1 = successor of n.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now