/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11419537
fuck philosophy

>>11419539

>>11419537
When you mentioned the circular argument, I thought it seemed like axiomatic reasoning, then you mentioned the axiomatic argument. Can you explain more clearly how the two are different?

>>11419537
>>In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics.
What retard wrote this? Logic and math are axiomatic. Also OP is retarded since the only thing the MT destroys is philosophy.

>>11419540

>>11419550
A circular argument contains a cycle of dependence whereas an axiom is not dependent on anything, including itself.

All knowledge is fleeting and impermanent, do not grasp at the wind nor the river as it passes you by, a futile attempt for the most innocent, merely observe the information in front of you in relation to all other data in your awareness.

>>11419545
>>11419550
>the state of your reading comprehension
>on a single digit sentence post

>>11419567
Relax sperg, I responded to the wrong post.

>>11419550
you sound dumb, as fuck if i may be so bold

>>11419555
BLESSED BE THE GODS OF CHECKEM

>>11419567
>the state of your reading comprehension
I don't know, I think I'm reading it clearly. And I understand what a circular argument is. But from OP's post:

>The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition is supported only by that proposition
>some proposition ... supported only by that proposition
>some proposition supporting itself
>a self-supporting proposition
>an assertion, accepted as true

>The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended
>accepted precepts which are merely asserted
>an assertion, accepted as true

>>11419613
Is this the peak of stemtism? Your reasoning abilities and brain in general degrading to a point where you can't differentiate between
>is supported only by that proposition
and
>rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted

>>11419613
An axiom is not dependent on itself. It's the difference between a loop at the end of a line and a point at the end of a line.

>>11419573
That's rich, coming from a triggered philosotard.

>>11419644
No.

>>11419537
And the Münchhausen trilemma is true because...?

>>11419537
>>11419537
What is truth? Math does not deal with "universal" truth, it's more about valid arguments to reach a new proposition. Does this "universal truth" of philosophy makes it superior to math? As far as I know, philosophy has no practical use, why does some field that is superior to another is just useless?
It's not that I despise philosophy, but comparing them to see which one is the best it's beyond retarded. Philosophy deals with some problems like morality and shit and math wants to know if there is some algorithm to solve some problems.

>>11419646
Yes.

>>11419537
We just use the axiomatic argument for math and that's good enough for everything so who cares?

>>11419731
>and that's good enough
And that's good enough to be discredited.

>>11419752
we have to use some observation for the axiom but then we can just run free following the logical inferences.

>>11419754
>then we can just run free following the logical inferences.
Another gem.

>>11419761
whats wrong with that?

>>11419763
>whats wrong with that?
The whole post.

>>11419638
>>11419644
Ok, can you give me an example of circular reasoning that begins and ends at the first proposition?

>>11419777
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

>>11419777
fucking trips wasted on a retard. pity.

>>11419769
There is nothing wrong with axiomatic philosophy.

>>11419664
Are you Gödel? you just found the self-reference!

>>11419791

>>11419537
>demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth
Well. I'm about to demonstrate that you're wrong.
If I hold a ball and tell you that it will fall to the ground when I drop it and then i proceed to drop it. I will have proved that I was right.

>>11419786
shut the fuck up about trips and dubs you autist. go back to /b/. 10 years ago.

>>11419779
>>11419786
Like I said, I understand circular reasoning, but the description of "the circular argument" given by OP reads to me as though it is not circular reason -- that is why I asked for clarity.... Especially since I am completely unfamiliar with the Münchhausen trilemma.

Circular reasoning: A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true
Circular argument: proof of some proposition is supported only by that proposition
>proposition supported only by itself
This sounds like nothing more than a declaration, i.e. A is true because A is true.

>>11419791
Yes there is: it's philosophy.

>>11419777
Axiomatic approach

Define OP to be a faggot.

Circular approach:

OP is a faggot because OP is a faggot.

>>11419801
you're a whiny little bitch aren't you?

>>11419834
I get you, dude, I do. But this really seems semantic to me. The "trilemma" is that there are 3 options in providing further proof to *further questioning* and that "the same question can be asked of the proof and any subsequent proof". This is why I asked for clarity, because besides semantics, two of the three arguments offered seem redundant. As far as I had though, circular reasoning involved more that one proposition because otherwise it is indistinguishable from a stated assertion. If we take the assertion to be true, then we have an axiom. However, if I accept it isn't axiomatic in that way, and that it is actually a series of propositions each of which validate the previous proposition such that it is circular AND self-proving, then it just starts to look like a special case of the regressive argument. Again, remembering the further questioning mentioned by OP:

"Circular argument" (accepted):
>A is true. Why? Because A is true.
"Circular argument" (continued):
>A is true. Why? Because A is true. Why? Because A is true. etc.

Regressive argument:
>A is true. Why? Because B is true. Why? Because C is true. etc.
Regressive argument (special case):
>A is true. Why? Because A is true. Why? Because A is true. etc.

Axiomatic argument (accepted):
>A is true.* (not subject to questioning; proposition accepted as true)
Axiomatic argument (qualified):
>A is true. Why? Because A is true.

I hope the contention is clear. It's not easy to articulate.

>>11419932
You are a complete retard and can't discern between axioms and and a circular argument.
Please kys.

>>11419954

>>11419954
Bruh... surely I've demonstrated that I know the difference between the two. If you didn't have the attention span of a dribbling, arm-flailing autist, you'd realise I'm not arguing that there is no difference between axiomatic or circular reasoning in philosophy or in general... I'm trying to engage with the trilemma posed by OP, unlike you.

>>11419856
ya sure. i'm just saying it was funny back in the day with all the check em etc memes but at this point it's just schizo behavior

>>11420022

>>11419932
You're conflating them based on colloquial resemblance. There is a world of difference between a mathematical axiom and circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is mathematically invalid. Axiomatic reasoning is all of math.

>>11419537
Philosphers are the biggest time wasters in the history of mankind. They're even worse than consumers because at least consumers pay for their wasted time, philosphers however simply vegetate and discuss useless nothingburgers in circles, unaware of how meaningless it is what they do.

>>11420047

> "Proving a statement true is not possible"
> is a statement
> philosophy fag proudly displays his true statement

the absolute state

If you do not understand or appreciate philosophy, your IQ is at or below 115

>>11420074
I agree, if you appreciate philosophy you're a brainlet.

>>11420047
define meaningless

>>11420028
ah of course someone who post those degenerate gifs would be a butthurt autist.

>>11420122
LOL CHECKED

>>11420074
Its mostly about being a sentient human being instead of the people in this thread who can't even read a single sentence.

>>11420084
there is literally no way to take what you said from that post.
shut up, brainlet.

>>11421584
>If you do not understand or appreciate philosophy, your IQ is at or below 115
>If you (do not understand) or (appreciate) philosophy, your IQ is at or below 115

Thanks for proving my point, philosotard.

>>11421597
you neither understand nor appreciate, so there is no error there, midwit.

>>11421659
So because they neither submit nor retweet you dismiss their findings?

>>11421663
Truly the NPC king.

So?