The inverse square law states that the intensity of a physical quantity (like light, or radiation) decreases with the square of the distance from the source. In other words, if you double the distance from the source, the intensity becomes one-fourth as strong. Mathematically, it's expressed as \( I \propto \frac{1}{d^2} \), where \( I \) is the intensity and \( d \) is the distance from the source. This law applies to phenomena that spread out uniformly in all directions from a point source.
Instead, mathematics serves as a means to model and interpret observations.
Right. And that's why their most pronounced fallacy is that of Reifying the Model.
They then Beg the question, which is when they bake into the question the assumptions of their model.
You see it all the time when you realize what they are doing.
Finally they top it off with the Invincible Ignorance fallacy/Pig-headed fallacy, wherein they simply deny arguing with logic and ignore evidence so they can continue forward.
But they can't shelve their anger, so that comes out as Ad hominems.
Love240 1 points 9 months ago
Right. And that's why their most pronounced fallacy is that of Reifying the Model.
They then Beg the question, which is when they bake into the question the assumptions of their model.
You see it all the time when you realize what they are doing.
Finally they top it off with the Invincible Ignorance fallacy/Pig-headed fallacy, wherein they simply deny arguing with logic and ignore evidence so they can continue forward.
But they can't shelve their anger, so that comes out as Ad hominems.