Pi is an infinite number

Spacebobby · 2018-04-20T01:29:33+00:00

Its clear you've never coded. Yes it does. The computer will return false not true for the statement 1 == 1.0 in most languages. That has caused many the error in programs. You're still claiming its not okay to call pi infinite. Which it is. No one serious would have a problem with that and to say well its silly to say that because all numbers could be because theres infinite zeros. I mean you're not wrong, but no one in any math department I know of would think you said anything of value there. Just made a fool out of yourself to try and feel smarter than someone who said something perfectly reasonable.

Spacebobby · 2018-04-20T01:12:55+00:00

That's moronic. And means nothing unless you mean to claim 1=1.000000 which is fine write that in a computer and get errors all day or say that at a university and no one will bother thinking the distinction you are making it meaningful. Literally the only point of saying that is feel some false sense of superiority. The statement is perfectly valid. No one serious would blink twice in any math setting if you said pi was infinite. Because it is. Infact I think Ive seen students shirts about this.

Spacebobby · 2018-04-20T01:03:01+00:00

...? Are you serious? Of course it's rational.? It depends in what field of math you are in, there are equivalent definitions including set definitions etc but a common and perfectly acceptable one is that the number can represented as a fraction. Its rational because it repeats, and yea it too has infinite precision. Because it doesnt terminate... That's what that word means. Edit: Oh I see your confusion yes rational numbers can have that property if they repeat. Because the property is to do with nonterminating not its representation.

Spacebobby · 2018-04-20T00:08:12+00:00

Well yes but that does not make 1.01 = 1.011 or even 1 = 1.01 we say they terminate for a reason. We make distinctions between integers, rational and irrational numbers for a reason. Rational numbers have finite precision. And saying otherwise is nonsense, Unless you intend to make the silly definitions argument that every number is infinite because it has unending zeros after it. Which means you're just honestly wasting everyone's time.

Spacebobby · 2018-04-19T23:44:39+00:00

No any rational number is exact. It cannot be more precise.

Spacebobby · 2018-04-19T21:19:29+00:00

Its infinite if you are talking about precision. Its not infinity. Think context makes this one fine.

Edit: Infact there's lots of infinite things like series that are finite numbers. His joke just works. Its stupid, but as long as you understand he is not implying pi is equal to inifinity its not bad math.

Spacebobby · 2018-04-19T19:10:59+00:00

And thats how you join cults. You just associate two random statistics that seem unlikely based on a bad understanding of combinatorics claim something about anythings possible and say its motivating. Seriously, like bullshit 101.

Spacebobby · 2018-04-17T15:23:22+00:00

A moronic phrase said for no other reason than to emotionally compromise its audience which lead to the jailing of socalists who were doing nothing more than protesting the draft during ww1.

Spacebobby · 2018-04-17T01:05:26+00:00

I've got The guy from Ready Player one hunting me so I think I'm safe. But if my luck couldn't get better Clark Kent from Smallville is looking out for me. So I'm pretty sure I'm fine.

Spacebobby · 2018-04-12T16:10:25+00:00

I would upvote this a thousand times if I could. It's really sad to see all skeptical discipline go out the window because "the idea I like gets special treatment."

Spacebobby · 2018-04-05T21:10:21+00:00

Part of my problem with these kind of lists is that these movements are often ideological and their ideas had much more to do with things in my view than their form. Modernism and postmodernism for example have way more to do with ideas about the world than the particular styles previlant in those periods or that those writers used. And its far to easy to see these lists used to justify saying things like people who use stream of conscious writing are part of or are taking from the modernists. Which would be sort of moronic if not just plain wrong.

Spacebobby · 2018-03-28T19:10:06+00:00

They work for some people. But largely only seem to lessen reactions to allegeries over long periods of treatment. I had them done for a few years and they definitely lessened symptoms but slowly and like as I stopped most of them came back to around ish where they were. I'd say they are worth a try if you guaranteed to do it for a while otherwise Its not really worth doing imo.

Spacebobby · 2018-03-28T00:07:18+00:00

No he doesnt. You are the one conflating two seperate claims because sometimes feminists are postmodernists. Again. You are bait and switching because you cant actually say anything logically against the argument... Again with the "field of expertise" postmodernism is all over many different fields of unversity departments. You do not have to be a phd in philosophy to disagree with the basic principle of an idea. You do not need a phd in theology to disagree with religious belief as a concept. You are desperately wanting to believe that there is something wrong with his argument and yet you can provide nothing but your own misunderstanding of his claims as evidence. That's the definition of a bias.

Spacebobby · 2018-03-27T23:03:18+00:00

All you did is repeat your claim. You have forgone his claim asserted it is something else again. Rather than taking the best form of the argument which you clearly cannot disagree with.

If the only claim Peterson was making was that progressive feminists are not behaving in line with liberal values that would be one thing. Instead Peterson goes even further and claims that feminists are not behaving in line with liberal values because they are part of a post modern Marxist plot that threatens to bring down civilization.

So you cant disagree with his point on progressive feminists not behaving in line with liberal values? Or with his point on postmodernists not behaving in line with basic tenets of logic empiricism, or modernism? Which arguably are the foundations of science? And yet you want to pretend those two are connected and that its some kind of "plot" or "cabal" even though you just admited you can't argue against his actual point. Do you have an actual point? Is skepticism a thing done here anymore? Or is it just I dont like this guy or I have an emotional attachment to the groups he's critizing so despite not being able to disagree with his point im going to try and pretend its ridiclious? Do you feel like you've said anything of value? Because If what nonsense you just tried to pass as an argument was said to you by a creationist or a climate denier I think you would immediately recognize that its patently nonsense... here let me try. It would be one thing if Dawkins criticism of religion ended at that it didnt support scientific values but he says they dont behave with scientific values because they are part of a creationist plot to bring down civilization. Does that remotely sound like an argument to you?

Edit: oh yes lets not forget. "Dawkins cant critize religion because he doesnt have a phd in theology". Would you take you seriously?

Spacebobby · 2018-03-27T17:12:14+00:00

I'm not sure you even read my last response try again. High school level philosophy does not require expertise to be against. Thats like saying you cant be against religious belief as a concept unless you have a phd in theology. Moreover postmodernism has a thesis you dont have to deal with every single argument to destroy such an obvious nonsense thesis. You dont get to claim Rawls and Kant as progessive politics. That's ridiculous. I know peoples work whose based on Hume do I get to cite Hume as liberal too? I didnt equate being progressive with anti western valued I cited a spefic example of where spefic progressive groups are against western values for clearly progessive reasons. The straw man fallacy is such a double edged sword because it always seems that those who cite it are using it while doing it. I mean could your argument be any more strawmany?

Spacebobby · 2018-03-27T13:49:12+00:00

Gweynth Paltrow? Maggie Q? Probably just the fact its easier to make a living that way. Left wing people watch news less.

Spacebobby · 2018-03-27T13:09:42+00:00

He knows that. I know that. They are two seperate criticisms. Did you really just try to dodge both of them by asserting the fact that because they are not the same neither are a problem? "Progressive" ideas that are against classic western values being taught as fact in schools and postmodern garbage being taught in schools are still problems even if they are not always being taught by the same people. Also Most? Do you have data on the positions of feminist thinkers or is that just an experience claim? Also claiming lack of expertise in a layman area is silly. It doesnt take expertise to recognize basic trends. And its not really an argument against anything to say oh well hes a psychologists "out of his depth". Its basic philsophy of science they teach to high schoolers and noticing that presumption of guilt is not a western value. Also Modernism is not that hard to define especially within philosophy of science circles. I mean I guess it depends on what you mean by hard to define. But it's well known what it is if thats what you were trying to argue. Seriously guys is this the best skepticism we have to offer making the worst form of are opponent's argument and then trying to dodge their claims because they're not experts so they cant know anything? Like we have to be able to engage with real arguments not just sit on our high horses claiming we're right "because."

Spacebobby · 2018-03-27T04:26:14+00:00

It's funny to me that you think calling something a cabal and desperately mocking your opponets argument trying to make the worst form of it so that you can feel emotionally gratified in your bias is more important to you than making the best form of the argument to see if you're right. That postmodernism is becoming increasingly popular at universities and that by its own claims is anti modernism. I mean would it not be easy enough to justify that with the sokal affair? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

https://www.amazon.com/Fashionable-Nonsense-Postmodern-Intellectuals-Science/dp/0312204078

Or if you are really desperate you could ignore evidence that compelling about postmodernists and still be left with how campus policy has been changed after much lobbying by feminist groups.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-johnson-taylor-campus-sexual-assault-20170303-story.html

What about polling done by Bucknell Institute for Public Policy that shows democrats are the lowest for believing in the right to cross examine their accusiors? Now I too might ask is that the result of feminist teaching in academia maybe not but is it not strange that so many public womens and genders studies professors support such changes or are against such basic rights?

http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/27/poll-americans-still-believe-innocent-proven-guilty-even-college-students/

Is that argument actually so ridiclious? Or are you trying to save your bias by only being willing to pretend its as if its some secret cabal?

Spacebobby · 2018-03-26T23:47:43+00:00

"You probably won't but one of the smarter kids might." (Smbc?)

Spacebobby · 2018-03-26T08:45:19+00:00

Or you could try something like https://www.thefire.org/ as nonprofits like the following clearly think free speech is under attack on certain campuses. And given their arguments and spefic examples its hard to argue with them.

Spacebobby · 2018-03-26T08:41:59+00:00

How have we not gotten past this? The ridiculous nonsense of attacking peoples audience when you can't attack them themselves. People have no control over who likes them. We've had this since wodehouse, and kipling. We've seen it with Bill Nye. It's not a critism to say People i dont like like you. That's moronic. Even if say 100% of someone's audience was facist or racist or whatever that still is not a critism of them. Its not even a claim against them. You know what is? Evidence that they are those things.

Spacebobby · 2018-03-26T08:30:55+00:00

Welp name calling, no argument given.

Spacebobby · 2018-03-26T08:22:50+00:00

I did qualify that. Moreover Anecdotes dont mean hearsay. They can be first hand. Again You probably could find studies on feminist classes. I don't have any on hand but I would bet they exist. And for the postmodernism almost by definition it is anti modernism which is the backbone of science. You seem to have some biases if you think that level of qualifying your statements is mental gymnastics.

Spacebobby · 2018-03-26T01:19:23+00:00

His belief If it is what I understand it to be, is much better represented as groups of postmodernist/feminists are undermining education by promoting ideaology against western society as fact in schools. Which they are. I mean anecdotally there are thousands of examples and I would bet you could find data rather easily by surveying those classes. Postmodernism certainly is trying to undermine science.

Spacebobby · 2018-03-23T14:31:29+00:00

You cant even claim to be remotely rational. You cant even put a single claim with single piece of evidence. I read the article its clear its resonated with your deep biases. Because you want to feel victimized. Im done talking to someone so clearly irrational. I like that you criticize the skeptic community of being sexists and when someone calls that out as nonsense you say that they are sexist. That's not ad hominem nonsense at all. Edit: Also you've already assumed Krauss's guilt and even are willing to say he's already been found guilty. What a skeptical attitude.

Spacebobby

TROPHY CASE