Why study math?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, Orwell, the issue is that you have a hard time dismissing my knowledge of a subject in favor of your own opinion by doing so. How much stats have you had? If you've only had AP stats, I probably beat you there too, unless you had discussions about heterocedasticity in your AP stats class. In any case, I really expect that marginal returns on "imposingness" to decrease as one's background in math increases. In fact, I would actually say that for our discussion, philosophers of math or science are really more important than scientists or mathematicians. In any case Orwell, there is no objective backings to attitudes on this matter, so to proclaim something as if you are on the path to wisdom is just idiocy, math isn't a religion, it is a set of knowledge, and frankly *both* claims can be true for a set of knowledge that is large, as is found in *ALL SUBJECTS WORTH SPEAKING ABOUT*! !! So yeah, a significant amount of knowledge can be relatively small to the overall picture if the pool is large.

It is an expression of disgust at the quality of the thinking. It is inconsistent with itself and with your characteristic obsession with perfect epistemology. It's also just generically a load of BS.

look up pure mathematics, which is the study of math for the sake of math, abstaining from applications it focuses on beauty, abstraction, theory, etc.

I wish we did more of it in school. Or at least mathematical logic.

You were in the midst of arguing with Shiggily about how much math you had taken; I was pointing out that it's dumb to brag about "almost having a math minor" as if that were something special, because it's not. I wasn't touting my own nonexistent qualifications in mathematics, but pointing out that you also had none to speak of. If you aren't going to argue with at least a semblance of honesty, just go back to PPR where everyone is more accustomed to your flames.


Who the hell cares about stats? I would barely regard most of it as legitimate math anyways. Most of my stats has just been using its methods in other classes, because stats is all about the application and not worth study on its own merit. You've studied more math than me, but not all that much more, and neither of us can claim to be an authority in the subject. I mean, Shiggily has a much deeper background than either of us and *still* does not feel so confident in her math ability as you seem to in yours.

I like pure math, and I also like to see where it is applied, such as in some areas of physics. Stats I really only enjoy when I am learning to apply its methods to problems in biology (epidemiology is still a possible path for me, and that is very stats-dependent).

I think the reason math is questioned is because it is so abstract- after spending time studying literature, history, music, or any of the other "soft" subjects, you feel like an educated person, not really so after slaving on a calculus problem set. Though, to be fair, these other fields are also challenged at times- I probably heard at least as many complaints against literature in high school as I did against math. At the primary/secondary school level, I think it really just boils down to lazy people not wanting to do their work and grasping at straws for some excuse to regard it as a waste of time. Add to that the fact that many people seem to be completely incapable of grasping mathematics, and you can see that the field has attracted enough animosity that there'll be a backlash against it.

In any case, I am evasive usually because I rarely like to answer questions about myself. I am secretive, if not paranoiac. I also don't like you, it could just be some faux pas you make, but you end up getting on my nerves. I also did that to Orwell because by laying stress on credentials he doesn't have, he seems to just be a nuisance, as if I don't know what I am talking about, there is no reason to suppose he knows more. I also did that to you in the other subject because you insulted me, and frankly, if a person perceives you as insulting them, they puff up, get defensive, and if they are a stubborn one, then the original insult might not have been worth it.

In any case, I don't track pasts as strongly as you seem to, I don't think that is how a discussion should work. It could be stated that I barely pay attention to the discussions I get into, however, I mostly will track things with posters I have seen a number of times, and if I end up finding a poster not worth my time(there are a number of possible reasons, usually I just do this with people I find hard to understand or communicate with), I generally won't bother with them.


I don't see how a discussion can happen without vagueness. First it starts off with neither side knowing the other's conceptualizations, perhaps even using different terms to describe the same phenomena, then there are some rather grotesque stabs in the dark until both sides start refining and clarifying their thoughts in the newly constructed framework for mutual understanding, they then might eventually recognize where the actual disagreements are. And the entire process is usually a bit grotesque, more or less so depending upon who the other person is, and how sharp the original disagreement is. I see this happening to a significant extent. In any case, I see attempting to "lay everything out on the table" to be a flawed approach, the actual issue is rarely so straightforward if the meanings of terms can fall into question, and most discussions fall down to presuppositions more than facts or anything similar, and those can be hard to get to without some level of patience and perhaps a broad background or intuition for how different people think.

How is it inconsistent with itself? Let's divide it into aspects:

1) I argue that even a person who is inconsistent can make valid arguments against other people.

2) I argue that a person who does not care about inconsistency could still argue against the inconsistencies of others for their own purposes.

I don't see how it is inconsistent with itself as the 2 different subjects are both internally consistent and consistent with each other. I mean, you can argue that the 2nd aspect shows inconsistency, but I don't see it as actually doing so.

It obviously isn't inconsistent with the obsession with the perfect epistemology, and in any case, that obsession does relate to a number of philosophical notions such as existentialism, skepticism, postmodernism and nihilism.

As for it being a load of BS, I don't see how it ends up being false. I really just think you disagree with it strongly, but have nothing else to say about it.

Well, special *is* subjective as well. In any case, qualifications are also subjective to get to that matter as well. Orwell, I am not being dishonest so much as you are just being an ass. If I were being dishonest, then you would actually catch me *lying*, but giving facts but holding to a different interpretation of them *is* within the realms of honest.


Lots of people care about stats, and I hardly see how it isn't legitimate math. Stats is about application to a great extent, but then again, most people are taught calculus with an eye towards the application of calculus, however, some understandings of the concepts has to be conveyed with a background of statistics. Ok, Shiggily does not feel confident in her math ability? So what?? Orwell, you are arguing a position entirely based upon subjective weightings, and you are calling *me* dishonest??? Are you joking???? You aren't even making an attempt to relate these subjective weightings to something that could be considered more objective and you are calling *me* dishonest for that? Orwell, stop being an ass. If you need to learn to argue, go off and do that, but don't give me garbage and claim it is gold.

But your argument against other people is that they are inconsistent. Thus, your argument is, according to your post, an ad hominem, thus a fallacy, and therefore invalid.


This would, at the very least, be intellectual dishonesty.


The first is not internally consistent at all, as it requires you to be exempt from the rules you are forcing everyone else to play by. In the second one you outright declare your own inconsistency, so no use even attempting to go back on that now.


AG, we both know you are obsessed with consistency, as most of your arguments end up revolving around that issue, and you only put forward that hypothetical case to be a jackass.


Because postmodernism and nihilism are BS, and neither of those are claims you've been averse to embracing in the past. You're arguing against yourself here, and it just makes you look *really* stupid.

Knowingly putting forward a claim that will be interpreted differently by your audience than you are choosing to interpret it is not within the realms of honesty. You know that as well as I. I am being an ass in response to your bringing the most obnoxious aspect of PPR and following me around WP like the f*****g plague.


Subjective, in relation to your audience. You were addressing Shiggily, who has studied a *lot* more math than you have, and making claims that simply would not be true from the perspective of the person you were talking to, and you presumably would know that "almost a math minor" would not impress someone with a BS in mathematics, so it is dishonest to say "a significant amount" and then use a couple pages of semantic apologetics to insist that you had actually studied a significant amount rather than concede one little point in your entire time at wp and let it drop.


AG, you argue merely for the sake of arguing, and this forum is not the place to do that. Heck, the only arguments that are natural here are things like Linux vs Windows (we all know Linux is better) and this semantics crap belongs back in PPR.

Umm.... no. Orwell, you aren't grasping the issue. The argument is that the position is inconsistent. If this were a straight up ad hominem, then it would be a straight up ad hominem. Please ask for correction before making mistakes, as I am less likely to pull in something unrelated to a discussion in a current discussion. I mostly have pulled in your past monarchism because I viewed it as related to your argument, and frankly, you were somewhat free to dismiss that and go on down a different path, however, I wanted to have a position to argue against straight because part of the case for my position was based upon the failure of opposing visions.


Intellectual dishonesty? No, intellectual dishonesty is where you claim to care.


The first is internally consistent, you just didn't recognize what I was arguing. The reference was the discussion on math, and there was nothing outside of this discussion I would bring in about you. In the second argument, I never say anything about myself, only that inconsistency can be avoided by not caring about logical consistency, in which case you cease to be inconsistent.


Orwell, the hypothetical case is something I am genuinely concerned about. For instance, Nietzsche stated in Twilight of the Idols that systemizers were problematic people, and Stirner thought that men should own ideas rather than vice versa.


How can you even prove they are BS? You assert they are, and little more.

How am I arguing against myself? I don't see where you've shown that.

Umm.... Orwell, the audience never put forward a basis for interpretation and you know that, so stop pretending as if some standard like this existed. Compared to what *I* considered a proper basis of comparison, this was proper, and I put forward my reasoning very clearly, and what I'd see as the average person would respect this as decent, not uber-expert, but certainly not ignorant. And Orwell, it won't work. In any case, I only have gone to 2 threads, and one you invited people on PPR to go to, so comparing me to the "f***ing plague" is a false analogy.


Orwell, I stated "significant" and "almost a math minor" in the *same* freaking paragraph. That isn't dishonest. That is a different value judgment. That is hardly dishonest. It is sort of like me saying "I gave the waiter a decent tip. 'bout 20%" When you think that a decent tip is at least 35%, I didn't lie, if I did then there wouldn't be anyone at my back about this. Therefore, to say that "I am being dishonest" must be an attribution error, as there is little sign that I am holding back a significant amount of information.


Orwell, this argument is and can only be an argument about philosophy, and that much is apparent. In any case, this discussion went very far off topic partially because some people thought it was wise to argue against *me*. It is not as if this matter of "how much math is a significant amount" is completely unwarranted, as attacks on my honest use of the term started when I first mentioned it, and frankly, I would have *never* wanted to bring it up on my own, but rather somebody asked, so *no* this isn't on my head, despite all the crap you put forward pretending it is.

I see people argue over whether or not they will ever need or use certain aspects of English grammar. And most of the math learned at the high school level and in many cases at the college level is still the mathematical equivalent of English grammar. It is a foundation that builds upon itself and while you might not use it explicitly, the basic knowledge applies to other areas that you will most likely use. If you didn't have it, it would most likely make your foundation weak, spotty and limited.

Given that you tend to destroy every thread you touch, it seems a decent analogy.


We're outside PPR, not everyone here frequents that particular loony bin and are not familiar with how much of an obsessive psychopath you can be when challenged.

Wait, what? Where is monarchism coming from? Are you forgetting what thread you're even posting in?


That is an absurdity.


Because inconsistency is a logical absurdity, and you have not rejected logic.


You are being a filthy hypocrite.

Ok. That's their problem. In any case, I do occasionally leave PPR, but usually don't stay for very long, occasionally try to add to some discussions and oddly enough, rarely get into debates, as all of my long debates have been on PPR despite my occasional peekings out. This one thread is possibly an exception, depending on how you consider it. (although in all fairness, I could be wrong about that matter of the long debates)