(September 8, 2012 at 7:57 am)Faith No More Wrote: Who is that in Vinny's avatar? I think he's a neo-nazi.

Antony Flew. Prominent atheist who shifted to Aristotelian deism in 2004 and wrote the story of his conversion in his book "There is a God". Fundies triumphantly parade his head on a pike as "a figurehead for atheists" who "abandoned atheism".

Rather an odd choice of avatar for an atheist, perhaps, unless he's attempting to be ironic in some way.

(September 8, 2012 at 4:34 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Yeah, obvious troll mate. You weren't very convincing to begin with and now you just sacrificed what little credibility you got so... time to fuck off?
I mean I hate to break your flow its just trolls are supposed to be funny and you're abit shit to be honest. Someone has to tell you, its for your own good.
Oh and if that was a real picture you put on to begin with then I'd consider getting some kind of help. You're receding and you look like the guy with special needs who never made the final cut of Jersey Shore.

Keeping the focus on the topic though. The question was whether mathematics can be proven within science.

Stimbo Wrote:Rather an odd choice of avatar for an atheist, perhaps, unless he's attempting to be ironic in some way.

That does seem to be a fairly odd choice.

For some reason I was thinking it looked like a neo-nazi from a documentary on tv, specifically the author of a book whose name I couldn't type without landing on a government list.

(September 8, 2012 at 10:56 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 8, 2012 at 4:34 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Yeah, obvious troll mate. You weren't very convincing to begin with and now you just sacrificed what little credibility you got so... time to fuck off?
I mean I hate to break your flow its just trolls are supposed to be funny and you're abit shit to be honest. Someone has to tell you, its for your own good.
Oh and if that was a real picture you put on to begin with then I'd consider getting some kind of help. You're receding and you look like the guy with special needs who never made the final cut of Jersey Shore.

Keeping the focus on the topic though. The question was whether mathematics can be proven within science.

Er... no, you were attempting to misrepresent me and it was obvious to anyone capable of reading.

Actually I think your claim was that mathematics is a metaphysical assumption and it demonstrably isn't.
Mathematics has an incredible amount of physical evidence to back-up its validity as a system that yields accurate results.
It cannot be defined either as metaphysical or assumptions. If you disagree buy yourself a dictionary and see if you can troll that.
Thanks for playing.

---

(Totally worth it.)

That image is just offensive... accurate but offensive.

(September 9, 2012 at 9:11 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(September 8, 2012 at 10:56 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Keeping the focus on the topic though. The question was whether mathematics can be proven within science.

Er... no, you were attempting to misrepresent me and it was obvious to anyone capable of reading.

Actually I think your claim was that mathematics is a metaphysical assumption and it demonstrably isn't.
Mathematics has an incredible amount of physical evidence to back-up its validity as a system that yields accurate results.
It cannot be defined either as metaphysical or assumptions. If you disagree buy yourself a dictionary and see if you can troll that.
Thanks for playing.

---

(Totally worth it.)

Thanks, RaphielDrake. I love that photo. Anyone suffering from Vinnyism must look like that.

"I resemble that remark!!"

(September 9, 2012 at 9:11 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(September 8, 2012 at 10:56 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Keeping the focus on the topic though. The question was whether mathematics can be proven within science.

Er... no, you were attempting to misrepresent me and it was obvious to anyone capable of reading.

Actually I think your claim was that mathematics is a metaphysical assumption and it demonstrably isn't.
Mathematics has an incredible amount of physical evidence to back-up its validity as a system that yields accurate results.
It cannot be defined either as metaphysical or assumptions. If you disagree buy yourself a dictionary and see if you can troll that.
Thanks for playing.

---

(Totally worth it.)

That's not me. I wear top hats.

But even when you claim "incredible amount of physical evidence", you are implying a second assumption of science. It's the problem of induction. Again.

Yet another scientific assumption.

Math works, is predictable and demonstrable, therefore shut up.

(September 9, 2012 at 6:02 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: But even when you claim "incredible amount of physical evidence", you are implying a second assumption of science. It's the problem of induction. Again.

Yet another scientific assumption.

Yes, however - induction has been demonstrably useful in the past, and it's well-understood that any claims made via the process of induction are provisional and a matter of probability (even if the probability cannot be necessarily quantified).

Should one propose to abandon induction and rely solely on deduction (which I will note has it's own problems)? I think not.

The issue at hand, from my view, is that of certainty. Even if inductive and deductive processes are imperfect, we are capable of using them to form approximate models of reality that are at least useful.

In the absence of better solutions, that's good enough for me.