Sign into an existing account

That's not bad.

Based and Objectivepilled

I know. Thats where the math kicks in. Media driven belief, in a non mathematical equation.

I had a client say to me today, “I mean, a million people have literally died because of this!”

We could nitpick OP's claim that all science is based 'in its purest form' on math. That's not really true. Euclid and the Greek tradition generally took math out of the realm of the purely practical and gave us the epistemology of deductive inference. Science, at its purest, is inductive.

This is loosely related to the distinction between rationalism and empiricism. If someone says that pure maths are true because human reasoning alone can cause us to know the truth, that is a rationalistic statement. If someone says, no, knowledge requires the experience of observing things in the external world to verify them, that's empiricism.

The debates between rationalists and empiricists form a big part of the history of the philosophy of science (and philosophy generally). But pure science does not equal pure math. Rather, science became increasingly mathematical after Descartes, and especially after Newton. Just consider for a second that the current view of the cosmos is divided into two (as yet) irreconcilable views of reality, relativistic and quantum mechanical (for different scales), and both were justified purely mathematically. One has more empirical evidence than the other. But each does the best job of explaining phenomena at a given scale.

Just take the Big Bang. In any theory like this you'll have some purely rationalistic evidence, and some empirical evidence. The math points to a singularity that is undefinable in the language of physics. Can one formal language and its tools convince you that a reality exists (or existed) that it cannot explain/describe? Well either it's wrong, or the language will have to change in order to be consistent. For empirical evidence, you've got things like the CMB.

One issue we have with the current public approach to 'muh science' is that most people don't have very sophisticated ideas about what knowledge is, what can justify/warrant it, and the various distinctions in our methods for producing it. High level scientific theories are not just 'one thing'. They are a hodgepodge of various kinds of evidence arrived at in different ways. It's a mistake for people to think that science = math, and that there is one single method we have consisting of 'math leads to scientific theory'. Take a theory like climate change for instance. Idiots will imagine there is just some mathematical body of evidence from which all of the higher level scientific evidence is derived one-to-one. They treat science like a living thing almost, where individual human scientists are all slaves to this one perfect abstract thing guiding them in their infallible activities. If you just do science, then you're 'doing truth'. It's nonsense.

Haha, this might be the best meta-statement for describing our cultural situation. The NPC wears intellectual virtue like the wolf wears a sheep skin. Just to appear appropriate and sophisticated so they can sneak a crude, violent ideology in underneath. They actually don't care. Not about the science. Not about the arguments. They care about position, and that's it.

You probably could have added a final line from the NPC: "K, incel virgin."

These people 'care' about the intellectual drapery until you make it uneasy for them to use it like a rhetorical weapon. Then they'll attack you over sex. They are like some women in arguments. When all else fails, insult his dick - the virtues don't matter, only position when the dust settles.

But this is also why they tend to gain more ground than we do. Because so many idiot conservatives waltz around impressed by their logical powers, while NPC's are out there being paid fifty bucks to go canvas a neighborhood street and make fake ballots.

"HEY YOU CAN'T DO THAT. BUT, BUT, THAT'S ILLEGAL. WE'LL BITCH ABOUT YOU ON TUCKER TONIGHT!!!"

Lol. Accurate.

Autist: I will die but the math says you will die long before me.

Say 'And I just want you to die...see, we are so nearly in agreement'.

Math is only corrupted when corrupt information is used. I understand what you are saying, but if you take humans out of the equation, math is science, in its purest form.

Except for the Red Cross records stipulate 271,301 deaths and when measured against the census data for the period, does indeed show empirically the actual death toll.

So yes, trust the math holds water.

You are confusing math with the gematrian numerical propaganda.

That's not math. That's jewish subversion.