/lit/ - Literature

Are book burnings based?

>>15266421
You won't get anywhere without a scientific definition. "Common sense" and assumptions are not allowed if we are going to be precise. I won't accept loose definitions when attempting to define the truth (or lack thereof).
Fact of the matter is, you cannot define what an apple is if you tried. Even with the best definition you and a team of biologists could possibly come up with, there is always a chance you may end up with an outlier, due to, for example, a genetic mutation in that particular apple. So it may be in your best interests to get it back to physics and things that can be "objectively" measured.

>>15266455
Imagine not being able to disprove "baby's first sophistry" and resulting to ad hominem to achieve feelings of superiority.