/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14748878
>If facts are irrelevant, does humanity have a chance?
Only if it consciously acknowledges that """facts""" are irrelevant as a general principle. Unfortunately, cattlebrains will happily latch onto """facts""" that support whatever side of the Jewish dichotomy they were raised into.

>>14748878
Socrates already knew that people can't be convinced against their will
Scientists think theyre special for rediscovering truths that philosophers knew two thousand years ago

>>14748898
Please go back to /pol
We should use empiricism here

>>14748901
A guy held an opinion thousands of years ago and it was right.
That face would be true no matter what circumstance we find ourselves in.
It's meaningless

>>14748907
You're the one pushing a braindead political narrative.

>>14748914
What an odious disregard for wisdom

>>14748925
If Socrates says something is true and we later have evidence afterwards that it was true, it doesn't mean we should suck his dick.
If anti-socrates said something was true and we had evidence of it being true, it would seem just as significant to you.
It's observer bias.

>>14748945
>If Socrates says something is true and we later have evidence afterwards that it was true, it doesn't mean we should suck his dick.
>If anti-socrates said something was true and we had evidence of it being true, it would seem just as significant to you.
>It's observer bias.
These "people" are a fucking cancer.

>>14748925
Do you think the concept was new to Socrates? The history of philosophy is essentially a bunch of monkeys with thesauri all saying the same things their mothers, fathers, and friends said. The other anon is correct that you only remember Socrates because he taught other monkeys to use his language and teach with it.

>>14748953
Is that a self portrait?
Go take a shower sweaty

>Do you think the concept was new to Socrates? The history of philosophy is essentially a bunch of monkeys with thesauri all saying the same things their mothers, fathers, and friends said. The other anon is correct that you only remember Socrates because he taught other monkeys to use his language and teach with it.
The r/science -> /sci/ pipeline is unusually active lately.

>>14748878
Who decides what the "facts" are?

>>14748975
The /pol/ -> /sci/ pipeline is unusually active lately.
You might be able to larp as intelligent with each other, but it's painfully obvious to the rest of us.

>>14748878
A fact is an approximation of a chain of assumptions. It doesn't give you a picture of what's happening independent of your view. And that's worked pretty well for humans so far given the number of times we could've just gave up and committed suicide.

>it's painfully obvious to the rest of us
Openly begging for updoots..

>>14748980
WHAT decides what the "facts" are?
The answer is empiricism
As far as who, you still have a build a chain of expert trust based on evidence of trustworthiness and reliability that the model they present is accurate. No one can or should have to be an expert on literally everything.

>>14748990
>The answer is empiricism
Abstract concepts in your head can't make decisions. Sentients beings make decisions. Who decides what the "facts" are?

>a chain of expert trust
So it's really just another "trust the experts" ad. >>>/pol/

>>14748975
Oh fun, a image posting bot with nothing to say. Post another image.

>>14748989
I should start and NPC collection
Quote me and post another picture beep boop
Or are you literally so smoothbrained that you can't beat a bot in a turing test?

>>14749008
>I should start and NPC collection
You are already part of the NPC collection and I'm not sure your microprocessor can handle that level of nesting.

>>14748878
Not all facts are created equal. It depends how much humanity is behind each fact at a given time. The view that we're all rational actors is true. We just don't have the same goals because we operate from different perspectives and a lot of the time ones rationality is irrational to someone else because all of our experiences are subjective. What we need more of is compassion and understanding. Good luck with that shit though. No one wants to get fucked in the ass without consenting to it first.

>>14749407
Wrong

>>14749407
>The view that we're all rational actors is true.
Stopped reading.

>>14749433
Not an argument.

>>14749434
Right, because information is not power. Thanks for your blogpost update.

>>14749444
Your opinions are information but they're not power. What does your cliche say about that?

>>14748878
>doomed
>chance
Why are you so afraid of death?

>>14749450
That you're incapable of utilizing information as power.

>>14749454
I suppose those who put those opinions in your head do have power over you. Maybe all information is power but it depends who wields it against whom, brainlet.

>>14748967
>The history of philosophy is essentially a bunch of monkeys with thesauri all saying the same things their mothers, fathers, and friends said

Patently false. Their mothers, fathers and friends were all likely retards that believed in nonsense, much as it is today.

Whether they were the first to come up with the idea, or merely repeated it, they were able to sort the nonsense from the valuable information. That is what makes them worth reading and contemplating.

Most people are idiots trying their best to fill the minds of intelligent people with nonsense, to sabotage their advantage.

>>14749461
>I suppose those who put those opinions in your head do have power over you.
Your supposition is a Freudian slip of how you process information. Someone clearly puts things in your head rather than you picking all of it up and examining it on its own. No wonder you stop reading when something you don't like comes along. Wouldn't want it to be put in your head.
>but it depends who wields it against whom,
That's the implication of power.
>brainlet.
Feeling threatened, huh?

>>14749444
>information is not power.

Correct, knowledge is power.

Information includes disinformation, which is debilitating.

If you believe most of humanity are rational actors, then you are hopeless.

>>14749473
If disnfiromation is not power then why are people getting banned for it?
>If you believe most of humanity are rational actors,
I don't think people walk around thinking they're wrong. Do you?
>. We just don't have the same goals because we operate from different perspectives and a lot of the time ones rationality is irrational to someone else because all of our experiences are subjective.

>>14749471
>Your supposition is a Freudian slip of how you process information. Someone clearly puts things in your head rather than you picking all of it up and examining it on its own. No wonder you stop reading when something you don't like comes along. Wouldn't want it to be put in your head.
All this pointless drivel is literally just "no u".

>That's the implication of power.
Guess what, retard? You "have" those opinions but it only lets others have you. Explain that.

>>14749469
>Their mothers, fathers and friends were all likely retards that believed in nonsense, much as it is today.
Not only is Socrates eponymous to constructing dialogs between retards as pedagogy, there is nothing he wrote that can't be more succinctly expressed as the superstitutions and anecdotes of the retards he lived with. You're just blinded by the thesaurus. Also
>idiots trying their best to fill the minds of intelligent people with nonsense, to sabotage their advantage
sounds pretty smart and not idiotic at all.

>>14748878
I've changed my mind plenty of times when the crux behind what I believe is destroyed by overwhelming evidence.

>>14749481
>All this pointless drivel is literally just "no u".
No, it's an extrapolation based on evidence presented in the comment you've made. It follows logically and is therefore not drivel by definition and there is a point. You've simply decided to not let it be put in your head by ignoring it.
>You "have" those opinions but it only lets others have you. Explain that.
People leverage established opinions to aid their goals therefore exercising power. The clear counter to that is examination which you clearly are advising against by not reading.

>>14749477
>If disnfiromation is not power then why are people getting banned for it?

Nobody is banned for posting 'disinformation'. They are banned for posting true information that those in power find inconvenient. You've fallen for the lie.

>I don't think people walk around thinking they're wrong. Do you?

Of course not. But just because they don't think they're wrong does not make them rational. A scizophrenic hallucinating phantoms does not believe himself to be wrong either, but you would not call him rational.

Tell me, are people who play the lottery being rational?

>>14749485
>You're just blinded by the thesaurus

You're just blinded by hubris and modern chauvinism.

I appreciate that you're being sarcastic, but that's exactly what happens. You don't think that people get envious of those that are more capable of them? You don't think they have the urge to sabotage them?

I think you know this to be true, you just are one of those idiots that must delude yourself so you don't recognize yourself as the evil scum that you are.

>>14749490
>No, it's an extrapolation based on evidence presented in the comment you've made. It follows logically and is therefore not drivel by definition and there is a point. You've simply decided to not let it be put in your head by ignoring it.
And all that drivel is literally just "no u" again. Do you see some humor in that? I do.

>People leverage established opinions to aid their goals therefore exercising power
So when I ignore your tripe and you warn me that knowledge is power, maybe you're saying I should use your opinions to gain power over you. Maybe I can use this to milk some (You)'s. :^)

>>14749497
>are people who play the lottery being rational
Not him, but what's irrational about spending $2 for a quick thrill that makes you dream? People spend $100 on a bag of coke or $1000 to stand in line for a couple disneyland rides for the same basic experience.

>>14749512
>but what's irrational about spending $2 for a quick thrill that makes you dream?

First, expected value does not equal out. That's a rational evaluation.

Second, how fucking stupid do you have to be that you cannot 'dream' without handing over cash for some delusion? This is the part that upsets me the most. You 'people' are so fucking braindead you cannot fantasize and dream without paying for it. Pathetic.

>>14749499
> blinded by hubris
> modern chauvinism
> envious of those that are more capable
> urge to sabotage
> those idiots that must delude yourself
> the evil scum that you are
Oh, so you're an aspiring pastor, not an aspiring philosopher. Why limit yourself?

>>14749518
> expected value
What's the expected value of a bag of coke or a trip to Disneyland, you absolute idiot.

>>14749497
>Nobody is banned for posting 'disinformation'.
Plenty of people are. Whether or not you agree with it plays no role in the definitions made by those in control. The people who ban for disinformation classify the information as disinformation therefore it's disinformation from their perspective and your protest does not change that reality.
>They are banned for posting true information that those in power find inconvenient. You've fallen for the lie.
This is an attempt to exercise power through disinformation. However, I do understand that from your perspective you're rationally defending the truth. I simply disagree and if I were to not treat your opinion with understanding I would label this attempt to communicate as schizo larping which would lead us nowhere productive.
>But just because they don't think they're wrong does not make them rational.
You can't claim an absolute because all of our experiences are subjective. See aforementioned example.
>A scizophrenic hallucinating phantoms does not believe himself to be wrong either, but you would not call him rational
They're having an experience and responding to it based on the information available to them. Seems rational to me.
>Tell me, are people who play the lottery being rational?
Sure they are. To spend 5 dollars for a chance to win millions is an asymmetric risk which is a strategy deployed by people who follow game theory such as poker players who I don't think you would argue are irrational.

>>14749505
> Do you see some humor in that? I do.
I see the humor in your selective delusion very much so.
>So when I ignore your tripe
You didn't ignore anything. You're actively enganging in a conversation about something you claim you didn't read, silly.
>and you warn me that knowledge is power,
I didn't warn you. I was mocking you.
>maybe you're saying I should use your opinions to gain power over you.
Give it a shot. See what happens.
>Maybe I can use this to milk some (You)'s. :^)
If that's what your time is worth. Go for it.

>>14749526
>spend 5 dollars for a chance to win millions
I disagree with this take. People spend $5 to add some dramatic spice to their day, not because they think it's a good financial strategy.

>>14749519
>No philosopher has ever derided modernity or spoken of evil

Stay dumb.

>>14749523
>Expected value of a bag of coke

Varies on the individual. If you're a wallstreet trader it can actually be very high. In any case, you're getting an actual substance. Buying a lottery ticket is like buying a bag of baking soda and pretending it's coke.

>trip to disneyland

Unique and 'fun' experiences. I'm not saying that's rational, either, but it's still far more real then putting in a couple dollars every week just to buy back your ability to dream.

In any case, you are so dumb you don't actually know what expected value is. Expected value does not really apply to buying physical products or trips. It applies to gambling and investment.

You are so upset that I pointed out you are literally paying money to regain your ability to daydream you refuse to face it.

>>14749532
Good boy. Now do another one.

>>14749536
Whether or not it's a spice of life or not does not change the fact that their odds of winning go from 0 to 0.0000000001 Additionally, people playing poker don't think going all in on pocket aces is a good financial strategy they simply know they have ~80 percent chance of winning the pot in this hand.

>>14749526
>people who ban for disinformation classify the information as disinformation therefore it's disinformation from their perspective and your protest does not change that reality

2+2=5. As I said, you've swallowed the lie and are now defending it. The Truth cares not what people think. The Truth is the Truth regardless of how many people deny it. Go get 100 lemmings to drink koolaid.

>You can't claim an absolute because all of our experiences are subjective.

I'm sorry you've never matured your thinking past the fascination of solipsism. Go kick a rock.

>such as poker players who I don't think you would argue are irrational.

I would. Especially the vast majority of them. Going into a negative sum scenario is absolutely irrational. (The house always wins).

>>14749537
I don't play the lottery, I'm pointing out that you're a fucking moron who applies expected value to situations where expected value is meaningless. Thank you for acknowledging how far up your own ass your head is.

>>14749547
>I'm pointing out that you're a fucking moron who applies expected value to situations where expected value is meaningless.

Absolutely projection.

The lottery is, perhaps, the most common application of the concept of expected value. You are the one that tried to apply it to physical products and vacations.

>>14749552
No, the lottery is people who figured out how to pay $2 for a $20 movie ticket. Your absurd ev analysis is pure fart-sniffing undergraduate academic horseshit.

>>14749545
>2+2=5
You're not engaging with the points I am making.
>I'm sorry you've never matured your thinking past the fascination of solipsism
It's the reality of the human experience. Qualia is the only way we can experience the world and qualia are subjective. Feel free to present a counter.
>I would. Especially the vast majority of them.
Game theory has many use cases proving utility. How can you claim results are irrational?
>Going into a negative sum scenario is absolutely irrational.
By that rationale ordering at a drive-through is irrational.

>>14749563
>You're not engaging with the points I am making.

Projection. You're arguing that Truth is subjective and what constitutes a lie depends on authority. It's juvenile, slave-morality nonsense.

>Feel free to present a counter.

Put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.

>Game theory has many use cases proving utility.

You're conflating game theory to playing poker.

>By that rationale ordering at a drive-through is irrational.

How is trading currency for food irrational? Note: I don't eat fast food, ever.

>>14749561
>the lottery is people who figured out how to pay $2 for a $20 movie ticket

When they could just torrent the movie for free.

Stay dumb.

>>14749570
>Projection
Not true. I've made a point and you ignored it.
"However, I do understand that from your perspective you're rationally defending the truth. I simply disagree and if I were to not treat your opinion with understanding I would label this attempt to communicate as schizo larping which would lead us nowhere productive."
>You're arguing that Truth is subjective and what constitutes a lie depends on authority. It's juvenile, slave-morality nonsense.
Right, because our lived experience is subjective. Unfortunately, people with most guns make the rules. Do you have a pragmatic proposal to counter might is right?
>Put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.
No thanks.
>You're conflating game theory to playing poker.
All effective poker players follow game theory to succeed.
>How is trading currency for food irrational?
Because when you order at the window you pay first entering a negative sum scenario in the time between you paying and your food being delivered which you claim is irrational.

>>14749574
Why watch someone else's shit movie when you can watch your own? You're actually operating at a level far below most undergraduates, I'm sorry to say.

>>14749584
>Why watch someone else's shit movie when you can watch your own?

That's exactly what playing the lottery is. Going into the woods and day dreaming is watching your own movie.

>you're actually operating at a level far below most undergraduates

Sadly, you're operating at a level below nearly every 5 year old.

>>14749582
>Not true. I've made a point and you ignored it.

Your lies are meaningless. I countered your sophistry with a point Orwell made 80 years ago.

> Do you have a pragmatic proposal to counter might is right?

Might is right does not equal Might makes truth. The downfall of countless kings and tyrants is evidence to that. Just because someone with more authority I have lies, does not in anyway obligate me to believe or repeat it.

You do so because you are a mind broken slave. Your attempts here are exactly what I asserted before. You are freely trying to stop anyone else from being beholden to the same lies you have sold yourself to.

>No thanks.

But why? You've never subjectively experienced it before. You've never witnessed it. Just believe it won't hurt you, and it won't.

>All effective poker players follow game theory to succeed.

And anyone that truly knows game theory applies it to more fruitful efforts.

>when you order at the window you pay first entering a negative sum scenario in the time between you paying and your food being delivered which you claim is irrational.

You're just a moron. Your sophistry is pathetic.

>>14749614
>Your lies are meaningless.
Show me a lie I posted.
>I countered your sophistry
My arguments aren't fallacious. You're simply not engaging with them
>with a point Orwell made 80 years
Throwing a quote without context to reinforce it is meaningless. You're not providing context because you're not engaging with the subject matter beyond surface level markov chain responses. I understand why you don't. I am taking you into deep waters and you can't swim. The tide is out and the emperor has no clothes and a tiny wiener.
>Might is right does not equal Might makes truth.
Sure it does. Our experiences are subjective because we can only experience the world through qualia and the people who have the most leverage get to impose their subjective experience onto everyone else. For example, supreme court banned abortion. Superior position is the supreme court was leveraged to produce this outcome regardless of the opinion of the majority of the nation. Threat of violence is the easiest lever to pull which is why military strength established the order and the subjective reality of the people in control of that military becomes the reality. For another example of that we can take a look at the outcome of WWII as well. Allies dictated the terms of what the truth is and if Hitler won the truth would be much different today.
>The downfall of countless kings and tyrants is evidence to that.
The downfall of countless kings and tyrants is evidence of an opposing force enforcing their own will with a larger force. It has nothing to do with an objective truth.
>Just because someone with more authority I have lies, does not in anyway obligate me to believe or repeat it.
Sure, but if you don't you're going to face consequences. For example, people performing and receiving abortions are now going to prison for the act.
>You do so because you are a mind broken slave
No, you do so because you don't want to die or suffer.
1/2

>>14749614
>Your attempts here are exactly what I asserted before
All I am attempting to do is communicate and share ideas.
> You are freely trying to stop anyone else from being beholden to the same lies you have sold yourself to.
Feel free to make your own way, friendo.My points only have weight because they make sense.
> You are freely trying to stop anyone else from being beholden to the same lies you have sold yourself to.
I am not in a rush to experience death. When it happens that's when I'll die. No need to hurry.
>And anyone that truly knows game theory applies it to more fruitful efforts.
Cool, doesn't change the fact that poker players deploy it in a rational manner.
>You're just a moron
kek
>Your sophistry is pathetic.
My arguments aren't fallacious you simply don't have the tools to grapple with them.
2/2

>>14748907
>/pol
>crying about /pol/ boogeyman
Fuck off back to plebbit already, you will never fit in here.

>>14748878
there might be a curve ball reason to th way we process truth. it MAY (long reach pulled out of my ass) because the collective unconscious calculated that the probability of humanity's survival was still very high in all doomsday scenarios.
these parts of our brain don't care about the broken eggs but about the omelette...

>>14749638
>Show me a lie I posted

Equating Truth to lies.

>My arguments aren't fallacious

False. You just believe that because you believe Truth depends on belief. As you are arguing.

>Throwing a quote without context to reinforce it is meaningless.

You provided the context, dunce.

>Sure it does

Again, arguing subjective beliefs are equal to Objective Truths. Go drink bleach.

>It has nothing to do with an objective truth.

Which force succeeds is entirely based on objective truth. A sword in your belly is as objective a truth there can be.

>if you don't you're going to face consequences

Yes, and if you do, you also face consequences. Like all the people now suffering for taking a 'vaccine' for the common cold.

>you do so because you don't want to die or suffer.

Delusion. There is no avoiding death or suffering. It is simply whether you suffer for the Truth or suffer for lies. I will live for the Truth, you have clearly chosen to dedicate yourself to lies.

>All I am attempting to do is communicate and share ideas

That's what propagandists do, yes.

>My points only have weight because they make sense.

Your points only make sense to you because you believe them.

>I am not in a rush to experience death.

But you are now believing in an objective reality where bullets will kill you. Stop it. Stick to your subjective reality where you can believe whatever fantasy you like.

>My arguments aren't fallacious

Here you are employing the age old technique of mantra. You keep repeating to yourself that you are not wrong, because you need it to avoid facing your flaws.

>>14749603
>Going into the woods and day dreaming is watching your own movie.
Fucking imbecile. There's no fate to that. It would cost far more than $2 for 99.99% of lottery players. You're probably the dumbest motherfucker posting on this website at the moment lol.

>>14749603
>Going into the woods and day dreaming is watching your own movie.
Fucking imbecile. There's no fate to that. It would also cost far more than $2 for 99.99% of lottery players. You're probably the dumbest motherfucker posting on this website at the moment lol.

>>14749697
>Fucking imbecile

Projection. You are literally arguing that people should pay money to fantasize. It's absurd.

You would be better off if you were dumber, then the mind virus controlling you wouldn't be so malignant.

>>14749676
>Equating Truth to lies.
Such as?
>False. You just believe that because you believe Truth depends on belief. As you are arguing.
No, I think our interpretation of reality depends on subjective experience and to derive to truth one needs to address reality. There is no absolute reality given that all of our experience is subjective.
>You provided the context, dunce.
Which is?
>Again, arguing subjective beliefs are equal to Objective Truths. Go drink bleach.
There is no objective truth because to derive truth one needs to consult reality. Given that all of our experience is subjective our reality is subjective as well.
>Which force succeeds is entirely based on objective truth
Alright, so if we go by this given that the current technocratic hegemon is succeeding it therefore follows they have the objective truth, no?
>A sword in your belly is as objective a truth there can be.
Anyone can buy a sword, anon.
>Yes, and if you do, you also face consequences. Like all the people now suffering for taking a 'vaccine' for the common cold.
Right, and by suffering you're of course referring to /pol/ gospel about vaccines which you believe is true. Naturally, I disagree. However, I've arrived to your position because I am willing to be understanding towards you. Isn't that an awesome thing?
>Delusion. There is no avoiding death or suffering.
Sure there is. I've avoided death by not following your advice of swallowing a gun.
> It is simply whether you suffer for the Truth or suffer for lies. I will live for the Truth, you have clearly chosen to dedicate yourself to lies.
I disagree. Firstly, I am not currently suffering nor am I lying. Secondly, there is no "the truth" there is a truth that you have rationally (you think) arrived at in your lived experience and if you're a little masochist slut for defending your interpretation of the world more power to you.
1/2

>>14749676
>>14749614
>>14749570
Not that anon, but double spacing everything is also the clear hallmark of an undergraduate failure with nothing to say.

>>14749700

There's no need to be so upset. Your anger is only hurting you.

>>14749702
>that people should pay money to fantasize
Other than sustenance and shelter, that's all people pay money for, you fucking imbecile.

>>14749712
You'd see that the second post clarifies the first, if you weren't such an illiterate fucking imbecile lol.

>>14749676
>That's what propagandists do, yes.
Propaganda is when communicate and share ideas. I love it. What dictionary is that from, anon?
>Your points only make sense to you because you believe them.
Right, also because they follow logically and are thought out.
>But you are now believing in an objective reality where bullets will kill you. Stop it. Stick to your subjective reality where you can believe whatever fantasy you like.
That's cute. I hope when you and your strawman get to see the wizard he has two brains to give out. In my subjective world view when I witnessed people get shot they usually die. There are those who survive, however the odds are exceedingly low and I simply don't wish to roll those odds to experience my brain getting aired out with lead.
>Here you are employing the age old technique of mantra.out keep repeating to yourself that you are not wrong, because you need it to avoid facing your flaws.
Firstly, I face my flaws constantly. Please don't project your short comings onto me. Secondly, I am following your lead addressing the things you think are worth discussing in the things you quote. Your inability to address the subject matter is the source of our looping. If you wish to continue forward feel free to address my points with a novel thought rather than repeating a mantra which I am now learning is an old age technique that you use to avoid facing your flaws.
2/2

>>14749705
>There is no absolute reality

Absolute sophistry, that you clearly do not believe in, otherwise you would not fear drinking bleach.

> by suffering you're of course referring to /pol/ gospel about vaccines which you believe is true.

No, I'm basing it on CDC statistics which I believe to be true. I also have numerous examples of individual cases where 'vaccinated' people are now struggling worse with COVID than unvaccinated. Biden, Fauci, and people I personally know. You, however, doublethink all of this away, to suit your masters.

>there is no "the truth"

2+2=4. That's the truth. You can quibble and shift and dance all you like. It's objectively, factually true and no amount of rhetoric changes it.

We have arrived at an impasse because you claim you do not believe objective truth exists. This is a lie, demonstrated by all the ways you refuse to harm yourself.

I agree with you that all human experience is subjective. That is of course, objectively true. However, that does not in anyway imply that objective truth itself does not exist. Mathematics is objective truth.

You've made a mistake in taking the fact that human experience is subjective to somehow implying the universe at large has no objective truths. That the world is an oblate spheroid is an objective truth. It's not the easiest thing to demonstrate, but it is objectively true.

>>14749724

You don't think propagandists communicate and share ideas? Are you a moron?

> because they follow logically and are thought out.

No, you simply believe that for your own self-assurance. You don't believe in objective truth, and therefore, it is clear, you believe you can say whatever you wish and call it whatever you want.

> your strawman

You don't believe in an objective reality. You've stated so yourself. But then, on your request, I offer for you to kick a rock, you refuse. You cannot accept counters, because your mind has swallowed toxic nonsense that just because the human mind is fallible, the universe must also be fallible. Absurd.

>Your inability to address the subject matter is the source of our looping.

You are now blaming me for the fact that your best possible argument is to simply repeat, "I'm not wrong."

You're a child.

>>14749732
>Absolute sophistry, that you clearly do not believe in, otherwise you would not fear drinking bleach.
You're conflating empirical data with truth. What you claim to be objective truth is data that exists outside of the mind and is therefore not comparable to the human experience.
>No, I'm basing it on CDC statistics which I believe to be true. I also have numerous examples of individual cases where 'vaccinated' people are now struggling worse with COVID than unvaccinated. Biden, Fauci, and people I personally know.
Ah, a subjective interpretation of empirical and anecdotal data. That's not objective truth.
>2+2=4. That's the truth.
To people who defined the terms.
>We have arrived at an impasse
I believe so as well.
> However, that does not in anyway imply that objective truth itself does not exist
You can only interact with empirical data in a subjective manner derived from your lived experience which is different from someone else who lived a different experience.
>>14749742
>You don't think propagandists communicate and share ideas? Are you a moron?
Your claim implies ONLY propagandists communicate and share ideas. I disagree.
>No, you simply believe that for your own self-assurance. You don't believe in objective truth, and therefore, it is clear, you believe you can say whatever you wish and call it whatever you want.
I believe in empirical data. I also understand that it exists outside of the mind and our only way to interact with the universe is subjective so conflating the two into a single entity is incorrect.
>You don't believe in an objective reality.
I think there is a physical world we are interreacting with subjectively. I think conflating empirical data with a subjective experience under the banner of objective truth is nonsense because one exists outside of the mind and the other one is the mind.
1/2

>>14749742
>You are now blaming me for the fact that your best possible argument is to simply repeat, "I'm not wrong."
Why would I post new shit when you're not addressing the old shit?
>You're a child.
Well, I hope you figure out whatever infantile hang ups you have that drives you to project this.

>>14749499
> be me
> a true intellect, an illuminary so bright that all who behold me are blinded with jealous, impotent rage
> suddenly, anonymous from 4channel.org tells me "apples are oranges"
> egads, i've been sabatoged

>>14749788
>Denies 2+2=4

I think that's the best victory I can claim. You like to go on about subjective empirical data, then are upset about axiomatic, rigorously defined truths. Good game, loser.

>Your claim implies ONLY propagandists

It does not, that is what you are reading into it to suit your ego.

>Repeating 'I'm not being fallacious' is genius

>Well, I hope you figure out whatever infantile hang ups you have that drives you to project this.

I hope you learn to take your own advice, though I know you're incapable of it.

>>14749815
>Make cool crystals with this neat trick
>Thanks 4chan!

>>14749499
Your mama is modern chauvinism if u know what i mean

>>14749816
>I hope you learn to take your own advice, though I know you're incapable of it.
, the post

>>14749823

I do know what you mean, and this is the most insightful post ITT.

>>14749816
>I think that's the best victory I can claim.
Congratulations on your victory.
>You like to go on about subjective empirical data, then are upset about axiomatic, rigorously defined truths
Those squiggles (2, 4) are only true to the people who have knowledge of the definitions. To an outsider with no prior knowledge of our definitions this could easily be false given that they defined those squiggles to mean something else.
>Good game, loser.
ggs, nice mantra by the way.
>It does not, that is what you are reading into it to suit your ego.
Sure it does. I said I only wish to communicate and share ideas to which you respond with
>That's what propagandists do, yes.
implying that only propagandists communicate and share ideas given that you don't see an alternative of a person communicating and sharing ideas without malicious intent.
>Repeating 'I'm not being fallacious' is genius
Thanks man.
>I hope you learn to take your own advice, though I know you're incapable of it.
I learn and grow everyday and hope you have the same capacity. Hopefully, this is this one of those rare things we can agree on today.

>>14748878
your mistake is believing facts or truth ever mattered and look how far we got

>>14749826
I know

>>14749835
>Those squiggles (2, 4) are only true to the people who have knowledge of the definitions.

Yes, yes. Solipsism and all language is a social construct. Congrats on being 14.

Again, the mere fact you sit here using words that you have every expectation everyone is able to understand is proof you are trapped in a self-contradictory hell. You are arguing for you own ego, not for the sake of Truth.

> nice mantra by the way.

I'm not the one repeating, "I can't be wrong I can't be wrong I can't be wrong' on 4channel.

>implying that only propagandists communicate and share ideas

Again, this is your solipsism gutting your intellect. Nowhere does that imply ONLY propagandists do it. It only implies that YOU are a propagandist doing it. If I said, "Pedophiles breathe air." Nobody is going to claim I'm implying nobody else does.

>I learn and grow everyday and hope you have the same capacity.

I hope that's true, though your behavior makes me doubt it. It's important WHAT you learn. Some people sit around learning nonsense, other people learn actually valuable knowledge. Even in terms of 'true facts', some people learn sports statistics (what I would consider very low value learning) and other people learn, say, anatomy (something I would consider high value). Of course, you can also learn false things, which is, as I said, debilitating.

>>14749490
>>14749481
>>14749471
>>14749461
>>14749454
>>14749450
>>14749444
>>14749434
I am in awe... the battle of the brainlets.

>>14749848
>Yes, yes
I accept your concession.
> the mere fact you sit here using words that you have every expectation everyone is able to understand is proof you are trapped in a self-contradictory hell
I've been arguing for subjective experience from the start. What about subjective experience translates to "expect everyone is able to x" to you?
>You are arguing for you own ego
I have separated ego and self, anon. This is a projection. To demonstrate that subjective reality I am experiencing I'll graciously give you the final world. Go hog wild, my friend.
>I'm not the one repeating
Ctrl+F Solipsism. How you many (You)'s have you collected?
>Nowhere does that imply ONLY propagandists do it.
It does in the notion that after I communicated my intent of communicating and sharing ideas you've assumed a propagandist is behind the curtain.
>Pedophiles breathe air." Nobody is going to claim I'm implying nobody else does.
it depends on the context. If I said "I breathe air" and you hit me with "Pedophiles breathe air" then it would follow to assume you're claiming I am a pedophile.
>I hope that's true
Same.
Cheers, anon.
>>14749863
Glad I could entertain.

>>14749879
>What about subjective experience translates to "expect everyone is able to x" to you?

The fact you sit here simultaneously making juvenile observations about language while also making post after post of words that you expect to be understood by a stranger.

That's self-contradiction.

>I have separated ego and self, anon

A lie. I have managed, after many years of meditation, to experience brief moments of dissolution of the ego. They were among the high points of my life.

>Ctrl+F Solipsism.

Yes, using the same word more than once is totally equivalent to repeating, "I'm not being fallacious" multiple times in the same reply. Good on you.

>you've assumed a propagandist is behind the curtain

I assumed you're a propagandist because you're trying to convince others to believe 2+2=5.

>If I said "I breathe air" and you hit me with "Pedophiles breathe air" then it would follow to assume you're claiming I am a pedophile.

See? Now you get it! If only you had gotten it before having to insert words into my posts to make yourself feel better.

>Glad I could entertain.

Not a single one of my posts was included. Not surprising that other anons on the science and math board believe in objective truth.

>>14749885
reddit spacer dude just shut up, you’re like an infant

>>14748878
The correct response is “Have you always believed that?”

>>14748898
First post, most confirming post. You are exactly who OP is talking about.

>>14749885

>>14751535
You will not be able to demonstrate anything wrong with my post. You will seethe, foam at the mouth and deflect in your next post. :^)

>>14751543
>anything wrong with my post
What about that antisemitic conspiracy?
>You will seethe, foam at the mouth and deflect in your next post. :^)
Imagine being so sad that your only joy in life is saying outrageous things hoping to provoke a response. No anon, I am doing none of the sorts. My facial expression is closer to :|
Call your parents. Your family misses you.

>>14751659
>What about that antisemitic conspiracy?
Calm down, Schlomo. No such thing is implied in that post. So is there anything demonstrably wrong with what I said? Spoiler: you will seethe and deflect again instead of trying to have a rational discussion.

>>14748878

>>14751665
Sure, talking about an alleged Jewish dichotomy that somehow controls all perceived facts is completely neutral :^)

>>14751722
Whether it's "jewish" or not has no bearing on anything, Schlomo. You're latching onto that because:
1. you have no argument and you have to deflect somehow
2. "call him a jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back"

>>14748878
Fact are like statistics in the way they are able to be manipulated to aid one's bias.
Facts still need to be interpreted, they don't speak for themselves, at least not entirely.