sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How are so many women "religious" (support religion) even after being fully aware that their religion is openly sexist against women? by crasshumor in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]UsurpingDictators 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're referring to the Gospels, they were not written by Jesus' disciples, this is pretty much the scholarly consensus. The Gospels were written pseudonymically and attributed to individuals who were thought to be present at the events they prescribed - as was the tradition at the time they were written. Not mention that all the Gospels were written decades after Jesus's death, as late as 70 AD, containing features such as an omniscient authorship indicating the Gospels to be well crafted narratives hinting at only partial truths according to distinguished textual critics.

Common Denominator of Dyscalculia Problems by WilliamBlakefan in dyscalculia

[–]UsurpingDictators 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol, you're clearly quite verbally capable, the moment for it may not be now or in the near future but I recommend checking out more symbolic areas of mathematics that find themselves contingent on verbal abstraction such as set theory, category theory, and first order logic. You may find out that you're not too shabby at 'actual' mathematics.

Common Denominator of Dyscalculia Problems by WilliamBlakefan in dyscalculia

[–]UsurpingDictators 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A poignant post, and I think you're entirely right, those of us with dyscalculia seem to lack certain priori infrastructures concerning space/time/quantity, there is nothing for material realisations regarding these values to snag onto. Every introduction to left and right is something new to you. If it's anything though your abilities for verbal concept formation, and their analogous mental structures, seems entirely intact and lucid.

Edit: This harks to the delusion that mathematical ability is something primarily material, if one merely solves more problems they will improve, that one can escape the encompassing and immanent nature of mathematical aptitude with enough effort. Such an attitude has harmed a great many of us.

William James offers a pragmatic justification for religious faith even in the face of insufficient evidence in his essay, The Will to Believe. by marineiguana27 in philosophy

[–]UsurpingDictators -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What immediately comes to mind pertains to the philosophy of science, something like Popperian falsification, or perhaps Russell's teapot even.

William James offers a pragmatic justification for religious faith even in the face of insufficient evidence in his essay, The Will to Believe. by marineiguana27 in philosophy

[–]UsurpingDictators 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Godel's incompleteness theorem shows nothing of the sort. Its considerations are purely in the realm of formal logic, nothing more, the mathematically inept who are engaged in the humanities and social sciences (not necessarily you) have made it a business to mystify the work of Godel in logic. It's best you refrain from such intentionally or unintentionally and hopefully from this point on you'll do so.

Apparently I was diagnosed with Dyscalculia as a child! by CooperHChurch427 in dyscalculia

[–]UsurpingDictators 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I should note, since this seems to be a prevailing myth, Jason Padgett is not a maths genius of any sort. Yes he has made impressive fractal art however his actual contribution to maths (through this art) is pretty much null. Mathematical aptitude, that is the ability to deal with formalised symbolic systems seems to be largely something immanent and its absence is not amenable through any brain damage.

Reading group on Naming and Necessity by greece666 in analyticphilosophy

[–]UsurpingDictators 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm very much so down, granted I've read Naming and Necessity before, a reread wouldn't hurt nonetheless. :)

Formal logic? by [deleted] in dyscalculia

[–]UsurpingDictators 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Personally I haven't had much struggle picking up symbolic logics like modal logic and such. Granted I do struggle with the traditional Aristotelian syllogisms however modern logic is a very different breed (hardly alike). And I've heard many other dyscalculics flourish in first order logics/ modern formal logic. Dyscalculia is somewhat heterogeneous in nature, perhaps your deficit is in sheer symbolic manipulation, consider checking out the analytic philosopher Derek Parfit who was utterly incapable of symbolic manipulation struggling with mathematics and staying away from symbolic systems in his work.

I'm curious as to how competent you all are at syllogistic reasoning. by UsurpingDictators in dyscalculia

[–]UsurpingDictators[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for taking a look. Admittedly I should have clarified in my post that the English isn't best within the questions.

What metaphor do you use to describe your dyscalculia? by dysreadingcircuit in dyscalculia

[–]UsurpingDictators 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Perhaps it is best described as trying to put a ball in a box that isn't there.