Things the PC brigade don't want to hear or admit

ILoveYourVibes

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The Arabs didn’t figure out geometry before the Greeks for sure, who weren’t the first either.

Egyptians did though.

Stop moaning ffs

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The Arabs didn’t figure out geometry before the Greeks for sure, who weren’t the first either.

All ears for who was the first

Franz Von Peppercorn II

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Egyptians did though.

Yes but they weren’t Arabic then.

beejee

It was actually a bloke in some toilet off skellig buachaill, he just forgot to tell anyone.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

All ears for who was the first

Personally I would credit the Greeks as being the major synthesisers of geometry but there were other sources from Babylon to Egypt etc.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

All ears for who was the first

Definitely not who you thought it was.

ILoveYourVibes

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Yes but they weren’t Arabic then.

They are not arab now they just speak arabic and are muslim.

Culturally very arab tho.

Hobosan

Whatever about the beginnings of geometry and mathematics, it's pretty clear that these days, the people putting telescopes into orbit are the masters.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

They are not arab now they just speak arabic and are muslim.

Culturally very arab tho.

Well “culturally very Arabic” is generally what makes them Arabic. I agree that they aren’t Arabs by descent - as in the Arabian invaders post Muhammad didn’t replace the population but convert it.

Hobosan

Race difference in IQ is not the only thing certain PC types deny either. For consistincy they must also deny the heritability of intelligence.

Completely ignoring centuries of easily proven biological science, while castigating others for not believing in climate science.

Truth has its uses... up to a point.

ILoveYourVibes

A lot of people on the dole are on there a very very long time and could work.

Also Ireland has the HIGHEST rate of young people claiming dole across 35 countries.

https://www.thejournal.ie/unemployment-young-people-3011946-Oct2016/

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

It’s not really. There’s a fairly strong association with IQ and success in intellectual or mental roles. It doesn’t claim to measure creativity.

I’m not sure if Joyce or Einstein did IQ tests but they’d probably do pretty good. Sartre maybe not so much.

I suspect you have things back to front there. Sartre was at heart a mathematician, as Alain Badiou has shown. Like Badiou himself, Sartre was a product of a mind that was as mathematical as it was literary. That kind of cognitive interplay between the linguistic and spatial capacities tends to be well-rewarded in traditional IQ testing.

If anything, it is Joyce who deserves the dunce's cap (and speaking of him in this way only serves to demonstrates the foolishness of standard IQ tests). Joyce doesn't seem to have read much from 1925 onwards. I doubt he was capable of (what would today be considered) rudimentary mathematics.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I suspect you have things back to front there. Sartre was at heart a mathematician, as Alain Badiou has shown. Like Badiou himself, Sartre was a product of a mind that was as mathematical as it was literary. That kind of cognitive interplay between the linguistic and spatial capacities tends to be well-rewarded in traditional IQ testing.

If anything, it is Joyce who deserves the dunce's cap (and speaking of him in this way only serves to demonstrates the foolishness of standard IQ tests). Joyce doesn't seem to have read much from 1925 onwards. I doubt he was capable of (what would today be considered) rudimentary mathematics.

My comment on Sartre was tongue in cheek, I’m pretty sure that Joyce would ace any verbal test.

As for Alain Badiou I think I read some of his theories on set theory and he didn’t really understand it.

ILoveYourVibes

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Sartre was at heart a mathematician, .

I would have said the opposite.
He had only a highschool level education in maths.
He would have had a uni level basis in logic. But existentialism and everything he wrote after that is pretty opposed to logic.
Existentialists are not logicians.


Logical positivists ( a branch of philosophy) are mathematicians at heart. Logicians (another branch of philosophy ) are mathematicians at heart.

Logical positivists and existentialists are at two opposite ends of the spectrum in philosophy.

Badiou isn't really someone i would call a logician either. I know he deals with set theory which is logic. But its a tiny bit of what he does. Its more philosophy of mathematics.

Hobosan

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I would have said the opposite.
He had only a highschool level education in maths.
He would have had a uni level basis in logic. But existentialism and everything he wrote after that is pretty opposed to logic.
Existentialists are not logicians.


Logical positivists ( a branch of philosophy) are mathematicians at heart. Logicians (another branch of philosophy ) are mathematicians at heart.

Logical positivists and existentialists are at two opposite ends of the spectrum in philosophy.

Badiou isn't really someone i would call a logician either. I know he deals with set theory which is logic. But its a tiny bit of what he does. Its more philosophy of mathematics.

Famous philosophers, regardless of discipline, are the smartest people around. Few can be so wrong yet so convincing and timeless.

ILoveYourVibes

Hobosan wrote: »

Famous philosophers, regardless of discipline, are the smartest people around. Few can be so wrong yet so convincing and timeless.

Not really.

A huge part of philosophy is the studying of argument. Lay people don't study that anymore.

Its makes us seem smarter than we are.

Logic is hard. Really hard its just maths. But beyond that philosphy is nowhere near as hard as subjects like maths or engineering etc.

I just thought of a good analogy actually philosophers use logic like engineers use maths.:)

About being wrong...yes ...a perfectly logical sentence can be totally wrong.

Philosophy teaches you how to make that sentence.

Sardonicat

Hobosan wrote: »

Famous philosophers, regardless of discipline, are the smartest people around. Few can be so wrong yet so convincing and timeless.

Few can be wrong? The entire history of Western Philosophy is built on philosophers trying to prove their predecessors (and quite a few contemporaries wrong! And a good job, too.

Sardonicat

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Not really.

A huge part of philosophy is the studying of argument. Lay people don't study that anymore.

Its makes us seem smarter than we are.

Logic is hard. Really hard its just maths. But beyond that philosphy is nowhere near as hard as subjects like maths or engineering etc.

I just thought of a good analogy actually philosophers use logic like engineers use maths.:)

Logic isn't maths! I have zero mathematical ability and did expectionally well in logic in Universaty

ILoveYourVibes

Sardonicat wrote: »

Few can be wrong? The entire history of Western Philosophy is built on philosophers trying to prove their predecessors (and quite a few contemporaries wrong! And a good job, too.

A lot of philosophy is trying to make what you don't immediately think of as falsifiable ...falsifiable.

So while it might look like they are trying to prove their predecessors wrong. They are not.

ILoveYourVibes

Sardonicat wrote: »

Logic isn't maths! I have zero mathematical ability and did expectionally well in logic in Universaty

Me too.

I won't argue with you on whether logic is maths or not. It depends to what level you studied it.

Sardonicat

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

A lot of philosophy is trying to make what you don't immediately think of as falsifiable ...falsifiable.

So while it might look like they are trying to prove their predecessors wrong. They are not.

I really don't need you to tell me what philosophy is. My university was satisfied with my understanding of the subject to award me my Masters in it, so jog on.

ILoveYourVibes

Sardonicat wrote: »

I really don't need you to tell me what philosophy is. My university was satisfied with my understanding of the subject to award me my Masters in it, so jog on.

I have B.A in it.

You surprise me i wouldn't have thought a philosophy student would react emotionally to debate.

Also I am correct. Philosophy is really trying to establish the falsifiable of prepositions theories etc.


Someone mentioned not getting badious set theory...its not actually his own own thing ....knowing the basics helps ..its really easy

Sardonicat

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I have B.A in it.

Did you study computer programing after that?

ILoveYourVibes

Sardonicat wrote: »

Did you study computer programing after that?

That's weird. Yes why???

My course was short tho...more about using programs to solve problems and program logic.

it was only 11 weeks..or wait ...did i just skive off after that??

Sardonicat

<snip>

Now, back on topic: I think people who are mentally ill to the point where their behaviour is having a hugely negative impact on their lives, but aren't a danger to themselves or others, should be compelled to engage with mental health services . I don't think people, who through delusion or mania, engage in behaviour that can completely derail their lives and the lives of their loved ones should be left to choose to get help. I think it's unfair and cruel to them. How can someone be expected to make a rational choice when they are incapable of being rational?

I think fantasists and compulsive liars are incredibly dangerous people, not harmless Walter Mitty types. I think these people should be sequestered and monitored for their own good and to prevent the potential chaos they can cause their unsuspecting 'victims '.

ILoveYourVibes

Sardonicat wrote: »

<snip>

.

What is your actual problem?

There is no need for the personal attack. Its an affront to philosophy imo.

I can explain set theory if you want me to.

Sardonicat

Why do you think people posting on this particular thread would want you to do that?

ILoveYourVibes

Sardonicat wrote: »

Why do you think people posting on this particular thread would want you to do that?

A Tyrant Named Miltiades mentioned an interest in Badiou who is a french philosopher who writes a lot about set theory and said they had difficulty understanding it.

It was just what came up in conversation.

I was continuing the conversation.


Set theory is easy when you have the diagrams. Thus the video.

You objected to the video indicating it was not impressive enough. Why i don't know.

We were just having an interesting discussion about philosophy that i was enjoying.

I am rather surprised someone with a masters in philosophy isn't.

But that is ok you don't have to read my posts you can put them on ignore.

cj maxx

What is set theory ???

ILoveYourVibes

cjmc wrote: »

What is set theory ???

Its a branch of logic that studies collections of objects (usually numbers) and their exclusivities or commonalities.

Object A is a set that contains A

Object B is a set that contains B .

Object ANB contains both sets a and b.







The simplistic way to show it is with diagrams. But you can also write it in the form of formulae.

It about the binary relations between two sets represented in a diagram or in notation.

This is very basic but it can be very complex too.

The binary relation shown here is the intersection. AnB

But you can have many binary relations...

You can replace A and B with numbers .... number 3 for example ..what does three contain ?? 1 2 3 etc and what does that intersect with etc??

And any paradoxes that arrive from defining objects other parts of set theory came about to try and rid set theory of any such paradoxes.

Paradozes would be things like margin of error in probability or in statistics they would be sampling errors

The applications for set theory are in things like probability and statistics. Other stuff too though.