₦airaland Forum

In summary, mathematics is not known to be consistent.

Scientists have faith in the consistency of mathematics.

GenBuhari:
I have proved that he does not exist. Because there is no web presence for him prior to 2013. Those that doubt me should present me with some evidence of his web presence prior to 2013

GenBuhari:
Patrick Sawyer is not a real person. Ebola is a hoax.

There is no facebook twitter or web presence for him prior to 2013

VULCAN:
A rather illogical argument you have been attempting to make in all your posts on the subject matter.

The First or Primary cause why Ebola did not ravage us all including yourself if you are in Nigeria is because of Adadevoh's proactive steps.
People here have tried to tell you what she did but since that doesn't mean anything to you I wont waste time repeating it.

What is clear to any unbiased mind is that everyone that came later to battle Ebola did so with the full knowledge of what they were facing and adequate protection and in some cases above normal remuneration.

Adadevoh had none of the above.

As soon as she got the test results she must have known that she was holding her death sentence.

Yet she resisted Sawyer's insistence that he leave, (he walked in and wanted to walk out in his weakened state) resisted his embassy breathing down her neck requesting same and if what i was told was correct she also resisted requests for same from higher diplomatic levels. She alerted Nigerian authorities herself and got the word out.

Doing this while knowing you were infected and most likely terminal is what she is being awarded for.

Such selflessness is relatively unknown in our shores and is worthy of commendation. After all the PH based doctor that treated Sawyer's colleague privately in a hotel for dollars also died. Perhaps you feel he is more deserving of posthumous honour that Adadevoh.

Saying the nurses that died should be awarded too is a rather infantile conjecture.

Tantamount to saying every soldier killed in battle should be given posthumous honours. It doesnt work that way and you know it.

Posthumous military honours are given to soldiers who die due to decisions they made that required Courage far above the ordinary. Either they choose to attempt to rescue a fellow soldier/s from a territory overrun by the enemy or they died for deciding to 'wait behind' to engage the enemy so others could escape (scenes we are all too familiar with from Hollywood movies) etc.

The nurses deaths though sad and unfortunate falls under occupational hazard. None of them knew that the man before them was carrying a deadly virus. He looked like a seriously ill malaria patient.

Saying they 'failed to take proper precautions' shows that you are so far from reality that you shouldnt comment on this matter again.

Regardless of your personal feelings...

....Dr. Adadevoh deserves National Honours

PastorAIO:
I don't agree with you when you say that science and maths 'try to depict the world outside ourselves'. Science,yes. But not mathematics. Mathematics is a world all unto itself. You can do maths without any regard for what pertains in the world. It is a fortuitous coincedence that the the world seems to work according to mathematics. But you don't need to observe the world before you can make mathematical discoveries. Discoveries are not created by us. They are there were we discover them or not.

I also do not think that you can class science and mysticism and religion as different epistomeoligcal devices. especially religion. I think religion is a totally different affair from epistemological enquiry. It can employ science but it is the same kind of thing as science.

sinequanon:
You are the only one mentioning "accuracy". You are out of your depth. We'll have to leave it there.

PastorAIO:
I think 'Doing mathematics' can be full of human error. That doesn't mean that mathematics is itself inconsistent. If there were no such thing as human error in mathematics then we wouldn't need people to check out our maths and make corrections. e.g teachers and peers.

I don't think we create mathematics. We discover maths.

However We do create scientific theories.

There are many instincts in Man. e.g. the Language Instinct. I believe that Mathematics is also an human instinct.

sinequanon:
Yes. It is a consensus. But mathematics is a product. It has to serve the consumer, otherwise mathematicians would be out of business. What is important is that the consumer has faith in it, and that does not equate to "objectivity of mathematics".

OLAADEGBU:
Basically, Yes. The design argument will suffice.

With my limited knowledge and my physical senses I have the evidence of God's existence as I have said earlier. When I look at a building, how do I know that there was a builder? I couldn't want a better evidence that there was a builder than to have the building in front of me. I don't even need faith to know that there was a builder. All I need are eyes that can see and a brain that can think.

The same principle applies to the existence of God. When I look at creation, how can I know that there was a Creator? Creation reveals to me that there is a Creator. I couldn't want a better evidence that there is a Creator than to have the creation in front of me. I don't need faith to believe in a Creator, all I need are eyes that can see and a brain that can think.

"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

But if I want the builder to do something for me, then I need to have faith in the builder. Likewise God, for

"Without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6).

sinequanon:
You seemed to quote yourself, but I couldn't find the original. You appear to have switched from "mystical" to "corrupt".

"human behaviour is indistinguishable from concepts such as mathematics" is not what I said, but, yes, "corrupt mathematicians" can mean "corrupt mathematics".

Mathematics is a body of incomplete systems which also have paradoxes. Pure mathematics can only be applied to a model of nature, it cannot be validated by nature. If you were to step forward and complain about König's paradox (out of the many paradoxes), for example, it simply isn't your call. Mathematicians decide which paradoxes to tolerate and which not to.

I should add that there is much less pressure for mathematics to be corrupt than there is for science. Ordinary people do not consume mathematics, so it is somewhat removed from the corrupting influence of popular patronage.

sinequanon:
Don't try to steer the discussion by misquoting me, and hoping that I will respond to it.

That tactic won't work.

I will only pursue a debate about what I have actually said.

If you can't find a direct way to make your point, we can leave it there.

sinequanon:
They are a group of people who have established themselves under a mission statement (currently one of materialism) and have sold it to layfolk as the holy grail of civilization.

sinequanon:
@Kay17

So that I know what you are getting at, can you explain how you would test if a bit of mathematics were "mystical" or not.

sinequanon:
Too vague. You asked about early "science". Now you are moving it back.

At some point scientists deem it to be science.

Scientists decide what is science.

If it is scientific research, by definition the subject of it is not metaphysical. What part of that don't you understand?

sinequanon:
I used the word "abstract" to characterize the orphaning of science from its creators. I didn't use the word "mystical".

So that I know what you are getting at, can you explain how you would test if a bit of mathematics were "mystical" or not.

Kay17:
But you need human beings to work out mathematics, right?
Following your thought pattern, that human behaviour is indistinguishable from concepts such as mathematics; therefore having "corrupt" mathematicians can mean mathematics is "corrupt"!

sinequanon:
It was called alchemy.

They would not contribute to the body of scholarship called science.

That is not possible. A metaphysical entity is one that scientists have deemed inscrutable by science.

sinequanon:
Do you think machines could potentially take over the task of doing science. Maybe you think they would do a better job, avoiding all debate and having automatic rule-based consensus?

You said that you believe that science is a standard for "truth".

But science makes a basic assumption -- materialism -- so, your "truths" are based on these assumptions.

Just because you are not explicitly calling an assumption truth does not mean that you are not inadvertently implying it.

I understand what he is saying. But the shortfall of his suggestion will send us on searches into the individual souls of each and every scientist to the point of absurdity. We would have to concern ourselves with how Carl Jung, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Darwin etc did their science. We will lose sight of the larger picture of science, which is a sum of efforts, and a standard for truth

sinequanon:
No. This is incorrect.

2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical abstraction.

An objective fact would be something that is falsifiable in nature.

If you said that all rabbits have a tail, your assertion could be tested for objectivity by searching for a tailless rabbit. If you were to succeed in your search, the assertion would be falsified. We wouldn't automatically say the creature is not a rabbit.

However, if I were to dig two holes and then dig two more holes such that two of them coincided, I would end up with three holes. What gets called into question is not the mathematical abstraction itself, but my application or interpretation of the mathematical abstraction, 2 + 2 = 4.

2 + 2 = 4 is not an objective observation about a "real world", but part of a method by which we are instructed to interpret the "physical" world. It cannot be falsified by the "physical" world.

Slightly more obscure examples happen in quantum physics. 2 + 2 = 4 was applied to electron states passing through two slits. The actual answer was not as expected. The answer is 3. What gives? Well, the method of counting electron states had to give to the non-falsifiable abstract standard. In QM, it is known as the Pauli exclusion principle.

sinequanon:
Science has a system of accreditation and authority as a fundamental part of its method.

Authorities in science define what science is. Even if the authority becomes corrupt, it still defines what science is. Corruption is implicitly acknowledged in the methodology. So when top scientists defend science from its outcomes, that is the voice of science.

Ministers and Pastors don't often claim to have created god, so I don't see a good parallel. Scientists developed science, and it is "validly" theirs to define and speak for. However, it doesn't mean that their words are truth, just because it carries the label and connotation that is science.

sinequanon:
See title.

Your abstraction of science, that does not exist in practice.

When you talk about "truth" or "truths".

You don't realize they are based on fundamental assumptions, and are assumptions by association.

Not realizing how it underpins your outlook.

sinequanon:
It is good that you can now see religion and science in the same light.

Your FAITH is in something that does not exist in practice.

A belief is a belief. Anyone can label their beliefs "truths". Another symptom of religion.

And I'm afraid the emotional side of things and "phobia" is all yours. All I am doing is calling an ASSUMPTION an ASSUMPTION. It is you and your attendant trolls, who try to dress them up as "truths".

You can look materialism up in Wiki.

sinequanon:
Hardly any scientific "discoveries" are revolutionary. (Unless you really meant "recoveries", in which case I don't know what you mean)

Usually, the technology comes first (often by accident or trial and error), then the science steps in to try to explain it. Then there is a long backwards and forwards between engineer and scientist to refine the technology.

Even technological discoveries are not revolutionary, but evolutionary.

sinequanon:
It's what people say about religion. They talk about their particular "big picture" and "standard for truth". They will claim that it would be absurd to scrutinize their prophets, leaders or followers, or the writers of their holy books. You are rather drawing attention to the similarity.

I have not missed the implication in your phrase "standard for truth" vs "the truth".

But when you have an exclusive "standard for truth", then you are treating it as "the truth".

And basic unchanging assumptions (materialism in the case of science) + exclusivity = dogma.

PastorAIO:
This sounds a lot like, 'judge christianity for itself and not by looking at christians'.

The point which perhaps sinequanon is trying to make is that Human activities will always remain human activities. We humans are filled with such pretensions. in the case above it is the claim to cold, rational, objectivity.

science is practiced by Humans, as religion. You cannot separate science from the humans that do it. As you cannot separate religion from the humans that do it.

It is a nonsense that christians spout when they say: religion is man's attempt to reach god while christianity is god's attempt to reach man. or words to that effect. It is a totally pretentious nonsense. It all comes from man.

It is a nonsense that scientismists spout when they claim that they are being purely objective.


As Nietzsche put it: Human, All too Human.

oliidell:
Kay17 go back and read the whole story. She and her team provided the first line of response by quarantining the 'patient zero'. Patrick had diplomatic status and was not wearing a tag to show that he was infected. He could have been treated for fever and discharged but Dr. Ameyo recommended an Ebola test and instructed her crew to detain him till the results were out. Which they successfully did inspite of local and international pressure to release him for the ECOWAS function.

Now, losing her life does not make her a hero, but preventing the spread of the virus and alerting the authorities who set up the medical response you mentioned makes her one.

We shouldn't always put everything down to influence. It's no fault of hers that she is a person of means.

sinequanon:
It is assumed because it is assumed.

Good answer.

Anyone else?

sinequanon:
The similarity between the moth and a wasp is generally explained as mimicry. The predominant theory is that moths of the species survived by looking wasp-like, thereby avoiding predation. Good mimicry is postulated as the environmental selective pressure, in this case.

For the slug, the theory is that chloroplasts were able to survive inside it. The slug evolved, by a method involving horizontal gene transfer, to be able to metabolize the products of the chloroplast photosynthesis.

I thought all this was clear, and it is not the question.

The question is why IN GENERAL morphological similarities, which could potentially be due to either of the above (or other mechanism), are mostly ASSUMED to be due to HEREDITY without considering the other possibilities.

sinequanon:
Taxonomy started out as an exercise in categorizing organism by similarity in form -- morphology.

Heredity was determined as the mechanism which explained why similar structures could be found in different species.

This led Darwin to propose common ancestry and a possible ultimate common ancestor -- "last universal ancestor".

This is really a problem in information transfer. How does information (like structure) transfer from one organism to another. Just because we see this information transfer, does it demonstrate heredity?

Take a look at these..

https://m6.i.pbase.com/o2/98/8198/1/103530756.N3SGg4DO.mothstripedid.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/103530756

This is not a wasp. Its structural similarities to a wasp are not inherited. It is a moth.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Elysia_viridis.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysia_viridis

This slug contains "genes" found in plant cell nucleii. This transfer of information is not by inheritance.

Therefore evidence for transfer of information, morphological or genetic, does not imply heredity.

This puts into question the taxonomical basis for common ancestry.

[Please ignore the trolls.

They will obfuscate by ignoring the point, repeating how "science works", regurgitating the Theory of Evolution for no reason, and copying and pasting irrelevant essays on the NON-inheritance mechanisms (like mimicry in natural selection) that may account for the examples above (just to give the impression that they are clued up and nobody else is). Meanwhile, their essay will not address the point of the thread. Please ignore them -- the usual suspects.]

bushdoc9919:
The work of Dr Adadevoh and others....and she does exist....has protected Nigeria from what would have been a worse situation. We did the right thing....and because of that, the situation was brought under control.

AgapeCharis:
Yeea..it is way beyond our senses and intellectual grasp

But I tell u d spirit realm is real. Very real. In fact, its realer than d earth realm. When ur spirit is acted upon by God's spirit, u'll confirm dx. U surely can't see its reality from d natural/intellectual realm. Even demoniacs knw dx.

Lemme do a lil talk here. In d beginning, God created d heaven and d earth. If he created dem in d beginning, it means he preexisted d beginning. He must have dwelt in a realm called d realm of d spirit.

Like I said, u can't comprehend it with ur mind. Its spiritual. Learn to function with ur spirit (if u'r a Christian) n u'll realise what I'm saying