I'm not a scientist man!

Think about dutchfire's last sentence. No matter how advanced it is, a computer's calculation is based on the interaction of elementary particles. Without approximation of any kind, any computer can at most simulate itself - not a whole universe that also happens to include a copy of itself.

The idea is that it doesn't represent the current Universe but as it was in the past. The past being the time we live in.
 
But we should not teach our children whatever we want or believe. We should prepare them to make up their own mind.

No, we shouldn't. We should teach them the truth.

"2+2=4 or 2+2=5, make up your mind, kids!" Nah. We teach them that 2+2=4 and that's it.
 
Or we say "this is how you add, now find out for yourself."

Here's a calculator. Write down whatever it tells you to. Here's a textbook, regurgitate what somebody else thought for you. Tell me what Google says the answer is. Etc etc. TRUUUUUUUUTH!!!1!
 
Quite honestly I think Snooki, WoW, Call of Duty 17, 12 hours per day on Twitter and Facebook, and the like are far larger threats to education than are the baptist boogeymen.
I'd like to point out that I have been a part of several Facebook groups that directly benefited my education.
 
I'd like to point out that I have been a part of several Facebook groups that directly benefited my education.

Oh, it can happen. It's certainly possible. :lol:
 
Was Facebook around when you were in high school? Do you know what you're talking about?

Ah yes, the arrogance of youth. :)

Response in kind...need a response in kind. Nah, age knowing best by virtue of age is tripe too. Of course I know about facebook and twitter. I haven't spent my life smashing rocks together while grunting FIYUUUUH.
 
Indeed, they are all true or false.

Psah! I take back my earlier assessment. Philosophy is a piece of cake.

Sorry, depending on the axioms 2+2=4 is true or false. Depending on the axioms 2+2=11 is true or false. Depending on the axioms 2+2=5 is true or false.
 
Isn't 2+2=4 an example of Peano arithmetic? Therefore, intuitively true but essentially unprovable. (You know, I forget all this stuff.)
 
Yeah, you can redefine + to mean something else than it does, or redefine something else to make 2+2=17 if you wanted to.

What I initially wrote was with the assumption that we were using the commonly used definitions. I think it's sensible to assume that, unless indicated otherwise.
 
Ah yes, the arrogance of youth. :)

Response in kind...need a response in kind. Nah, age knowing best by virtue of age is tripe too. Of course I know about facebook and twitter. I haven't spent my life smashing rocks together while grunting FIYUUUUH.
I didn't ask if you knew of its existence, but of its educational use for high school students. I know more about the impact of Facebook on high school education than you, because I have had that experience and you presumably did not; in a tangential vein, you know more about raising kids than I do, because you have had that experience and I have not.

Point being, don't say "x is ruining education" when you don't know anything about x's impact on education.
 
Sorry, depending on the axioms 2+2=4 is true or false. Depending on the axioms 2+2=11 is true or false. Depending on the axioms 2+2=5 is true or false.
Yeah well, I'm not going to include the axiom used, nor the dimension in which it is used in every claim I make when they are in the bleeding obvious department :) You can go overboard with this you know.

2+2=4. Deal with it.

You know what would make a great thread? Ask a philosopher. You can just answer: "May be, it depends" to every thing :p
 
What do y'all mean by axiom?

I know my axiom's and there's only North Korea, Iran and Iraq in it, ain't no maths.

(seriously, what's an axiom?)
 
Back
Top Bottom