Language and thought - Page 5

Sikander · March 18, 2003, 01:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo

Of course, you could come up with a mathematical system that isn't based on noncontradiction. It's just that such a system wouldn't be particularly useful.

No you couldn't base a mathematical system on noncontradiction, but if you did it would be useful.

The Vagabond · March 18, 2003, 01:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Thank you, this is what the argument was about.
Agathon tried (unsuccessfully) to argue the other way through smoke and mirrors.

No, he didn't. I haven't read the whole discussion, but my impression was that he was trying to underscore that the "truth" part is an important aspect of mathematics.

Quote:

Sure, why not. It describes certain truths in our world. No problem there.

OK then.

Ramo · March 18, 2003, 01:51

Quote:

No you couldn't base a mathematical system on noncontradiction, but if you did it would be useful.

Touche.

Asher · March 18, 2003, 01:52

Quote:

Originally posted by The Vagabond
No, he didn't. I haven't read the whole discussion, but my impression was that he was trying to underscore that the "truth" part is an important aspect of mathematics.

I'm not sure why he was talking about the "truth" part because many times in my posts I've talked about how mathematics was made in response to natural phenmonenon (which are obviously "true").

It started out like this:
Me:

Quote:

If we're going to discuss how mathematics isn't a man-made construct I may as well discuss why I think my socks were crafted meticulously by aliens.

Him:

Quote:

I don't think the questions are equivalent. Anyway the fact that you believe dogmatically that mathematics is a human construcy doesn't prove that it is and isn't even a compelling reason to believe so.

And so a lengthy debate ensued where Agathon argued that mathematics wasn't man-made, even though he was apparently confusing mathematics with the natural phenomenon mathematics describes.

Imran Siddiqui · March 18, 2003, 02:00

Quote:

And so a lengthy debate ensued where Agathon argued that mathematics wasn't man-made, even though he was apparently confusing mathematics with the natural phenomenon mathematics describes.

Jeez, why don't you two lovebirds kiss and make-up and just agree that both of your theories are equally valid (though Agathon does argue his better) and let it go.

I'm sensing some real sexual tension here

.

Asher · March 18, 2003, 02:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Jeez, why don't you two lovebirds kiss and make-up and just agree that both of your theories are equally valid (though Agathon does argue his better) and let it go.

I'm sensing some real sexual tension here

.

Argue his better?? He's not even grounded in reality.

He was arguing about something using the wrong terms completely.

It's certainly not valid, at all, to say that mathematics is not man-made, unless you twist the definition of mathematics. Which is what Agathon has done here.

Maybe that's how you can win debates in philosophy, by changing the meaning of words then scoffing at the OED when confronted with it, but that's not how it works with the real world.

Imran Siddiqui · March 18, 2003, 02:06

Yes, he has argued his side better, Asher. Get over it and make up

.

The Vagabond · March 18, 2003, 02:08

OK, Asher, I believe we've got some confusion here. Let's clear up a little bit.

Mathematics is a man-made construct. However, as far as the truth part is concerned, mathematics reflects some objective (i.e. man-independent) reality. Throughout the discussion you have been overemphasizing the man-madeness of mathematics to detriment of its objective character. Agathon tried to correct you in this.

Jaguar · March 18, 2003, 02:08

There are some things that I can think of as a single thought when they are only describable by multiple words. Examples:

That thing where you and someone else keep trying to pass each other but always end up trying to go around the each other in the same direction, leading to an awkward back and forth movement that looks really silly.

Asher · March 18, 2003, 02:08

Quote:

The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.

Someone want to explain to me how Agathon illustrated how the study of something is not man-made, seeing as it is the product of man's work?

He made a pathetic argument with smoke and mirrors and big words, and you fell for it.

You better get some practice before you enter the courtroom, Imran.

Asher · March 18, 2003, 02:11

Quote:

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Agathon tried to correct you in this.

How can he correct me on something I never disagreed with him about??

I realize the natural phenomenon like having 2 apples and adding 2 apples gives you 4 apples is not man-made, I never said otherwise.

Agathon argued with me when I said mathematics is a man-made construct. Which it is, by definition.

And now we're somehow trying to correct me for something I never disagreed with him about? I'm lost...

Ramo · March 18, 2003, 02:15

Quote:

However, as far as the truth part is concerned, mathematics reflects some objective (i.e. man-independent) reality. Throughout the discussion you have been overemphasizing the man-madeness of mathematics to detriment of its objective character. Agathon tried to correct you in this.

I don't agree with Agathon's assertion that math reflects an objective reality either. I don't believe there's such a thing as objective reality.

Imran Siddiqui · March 18, 2003, 02:16

Asher, your inability to see the other side and lack of debating skill will doom you in these debates (I have no idea how you cannot see the POV that math is an objective reality that man simply attempts to explain)

I already have plenty of practice, though I have no doubt you would get utterly ripped apart in a courtroom.

Asher · March 18, 2003, 02:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Asher, your inability to see the other side

I can see his side, he's arguing about the wrong damn thing since he didn't understand the definition of mathematics.

He was wondering why I kept ignoring that debate and wondered why I called it irrelevant -- duh.

It's a very simple mistake, he mistook mathematics for the phenomenons described by mathematics.

That simple mistake doomed his whole argument from the start, to the point where he tried to launch many side-arguments as distractions.

He didn't prove a point at all, he was arguing about something totally different than what I asserted.

I think you need to pay more close attention to the thread. He made many desperate attempts to distract people and change the route of the debate to save face (ie: The Alberta bullshit), I guess you missed that, too.

Quote:

(I have no idea how you cannot see the POV that math is an objective reality that man simply attempts to explain)

I have no idea why you got that idea in the first place.
Mathematics are the explanations that man gave for the objective reality, I've never said anything to the contrary.

Since mathematics are explanations, they're man-made.

QED...

The Vagabond · March 18, 2003, 02:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Agathon argued with me when I said mathematics is a man-made construct. Which it is, by definition.

And now we're somehow trying to correct me for something I never disagreed with him about? I'm lost...

If you say that mathematics is just a man-made construct and fail to appropriately mention the truth part (i.e. its objective character), then you are not quite correct in describing the essence of what is mathematics.

OK, in other words, the objective/truth part is absolutely essential.

Imran Siddiqui · March 18, 2003, 02:22

Like I said, you can't see the other side. You asserted something he believed to be false, so he took you to task for it. If you could really see the other side, you'd know this by now.

Asher · March 18, 2003, 02:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Like I said, you can't see the other side. You asserted something he believed to be false, so he took you to task for it. If you could really see the other side, you'd know this by now.

Nonsense, both he and you have constructed strawmen.

Quote:

(I have no idea how you cannot see the POV that math is an objective reality that man simply attempts to explain)

Mathematics are the explanations that man gave for the objective reality, I've never said anything to the contrary.

Since mathematics are explanations, they're man-made.

Pay attention next time.

Math is not that objective reality itself, just the explanations man gave for it. Don't believe me? Pick up your dictionary.

Imran Siddiqui · March 18, 2003, 02:26

Quote:

Mathematics are the explanations that man gave for the objective reality, I've never said anything to the contrary.

No, you didn't get it. Pay attention, there WILL be a test.

The Point of View is that MATH itself is objective reality and man attempts to explain what math is. Math isn't the explanations, but the objective reality itself.

Reading is fundamental. You should try it.

Asher · March 18, 2003, 02:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, you didn't get it. Pay attention, there WILL be a test.

The Point of View is that MATH itself is objective reality and man attempts to explain what math is. Math isn't the explanations, but the objective reality itself.

But that Point of View contradicts the definition of mathematics.

If you're arguing something using a word like "mathematics", it's assumed you're using it as it's defined.

I used the word as it's defined. Mathematics is defined as being the "study of..." and as such is man-made.

You guys obviously interpreted it otherwise, but the dictionary isn't on your side.

Ramo · March 18, 2003, 02:32

I would butt into the argument between y'all, but I don't think either side makes much sense.

Imran Siddiqui · March 18, 2003, 02:32

Like I said you cannot see the other side's POV. I may not agree with it (in fact I'm on Ramo's side), but at the very least I can see it.

And Agathon saw your side while arguing his, and was able to make better arguments because he actually understood was he was arguing against.

And refering to the dictionary in philosophical debates is amazingly silly, btw. Most of the discussion focuses on what the definition of the important words of the debate SHOULD mean.

The Vagabond · March 18, 2003, 02:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
I don't believe there's such a thing as objective reality.

If so, you bring the discussion to a completely different level. Then what is out there in lieu of objective reality?

Asher · March 18, 2003, 02:33

The problem is just a misunderstanding.

Agathon and Imran disagree with how mathematics is defined, apparently.

They don't understand that that's not what I was arguing about in the first place. Mathematics, the word, is defined on this planet as being the "study of".

They have every right to believe it's the actual events rather than the study of them, just as I have the right to believe the word "police" means "a large house", but I shouldn't debate people with those interpretations. It's silly.

Asher · March 18, 2003, 02:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Like I said you cannot see the other side's POV. I may not agree with it (in fact I'm on Ramo's side), but at the very least I can see it.

And Agathon saw your side while arguing his, and was able to make better arguments because he actually understood was he was arguing against.

And refering to the dictionary in philosophical debates is amazingly silly, btw. Most of the discussion focuses on what the definition of the important words of the debate SHOULD mean.

Imran... you still don't get it.
I never argued about the actual events/natural parts of it, at all. I realize Agathon did. I ignored that part, it's irrelevant to my comment he was refuting.

I stated mathematics was man-made. And since mathematics is the study of something, it certainly is man-made. Agathon apparently disagreed, and went into a lot of posts trying to refute it, all the while completely missing the point of what mathematics is defined as on this planet. I realize what he meant, but it's not what I meant.

He, in fact, did NOT see my side, and neither have you yet.

And I don't see why the dictionary can't be used -- how the hell else are we supposed to figure out what everyone is arguing about?

Use the word as it's defined next time, you'll find it's helpful to other people that way.

I'm a bit amused by this whole thing, both that Agathon continued arguing about something completely irrelevant to the statement I made and that you were somehow suckered into it as well. Oh well.

Imran Siddiqui · March 18, 2003, 02:36

Quote:

If so, you bring the discussion to a completely different level. Then what is out there in lieu of objective reality?

Ah, a matter after my own heart

.

Since there is no objective reality everything is simply a subjective reality, individualized to each mind. It probably isn't the same reality to other minds (if they truly exist at all).

Ted Striker · March 18, 2003, 02:37

You people are too hard core for me.

Much easier to call people Eurocoms and shout USA!

Ted Striker · March 18, 2003, 02:38

USA!

Asher · March 18, 2003, 02:39

This is another example against most philosophy debates.

Half the time the philosophers use weird non-standard definitions and entire debates are born over it.

Imran Siddiqui · March 18, 2003, 02:39

Quote:

And I don't see why the dictionary can't be used -- how the hell else are we supposed to figure out what everyone is arguing about?

You don't get it.

That's the point of philosophy of language. Defining words how they should be used. You cannot engage in a philosophical discussion without making an argument on how words should be used.

Btw, look in the dictionary for 'socialism' and 'communism' and you'll see definitions TOTALLY off the mark.

Oh, and where do you think definitions arise from? A supreme being somewhere? No, discussions over what words should mean.

Asher · March 18, 2003, 02:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You don't get it.

That's the point of philosophy of language. Defining words how they should be used.

If he disagreed with the definition of mathematics, he could have just SAID so, rather than assuming some weird definition and launching an entire argument centered upon it...

This wasn't even supposed to be a philosophy of language argument. I don't even want to debate that.

I go by how things are defined, if you don't like how the word is defined, make up your own damn word, trademark it, and jump for joy -- don't **** up existing words at your own leisure.