>>2721>However math surrounds us. Each individual droplet is hurling at the ground, influenced by wind and other elements that the world can throw at it.Wow, cool.
That's still not helpful to your point.
You've functionally defined all occurrences as a matter of mathematics, irrespective of whether we choose to utilize them or not.
And this, while trying to field the rain example as a failing of logic, no less, despite admitting yourself logic is "useful in mathematics".
You've managed to bring up something entirely irrelevant that actively damages your own argument.
It's rather astounding, honestly.
> the definition of Law and Theory has changedI don't know the particulars of the politics of academia, beyond to say that the theoretical concept of relativity is obviously a rather different beast to the consistent measurement of gravity.
> It is the explanation of "Why?Which is rather my gripe.
It's an explanation.
It is not an observation.
Compare to the laws of motion.
"An object at rest remains at rest" does not assume the cause.
There is distinction between saying "Your hand burns when put in fire", as observation, and coming up with some plasuable explanation as to why.
These are not equivalent.
> Explain. You make a statement of remarkable irrelevancy with a pile of verbose rambling and psuedo-intellectual posturing, as though it refutes an argument, or otherwise proves your purported point in the OP.
That is to say, you bring up something as though it's some grandiose wrench that shatters all contrary argumentation, and peacock about accordingly.
In this case, giving the trite bragging, as though your astounding display of irrelevant babbling warrants a bold and boisterous putdown of your opposition.
Saying such things as "But I wouldn't expect some brutish, greasy, unwashed Socrate's fanboy/girl to understand."
In all your meandering, what ultimately was said is that, yes, academia is faulty, science falters often, and, exactly as I said, mistakes are routinely made.
You've agreed with me, demonstrated my own arguments for me, and somehow, you think it was a 'win'.
>Of course not. It's just the pursuit of education and knowledge; it doesn't mean that it is always going to be correct.And yet you decried logic for not being 100% infaliable.
Do you see what I'm meaning, here?
You argue in circles.
You say one thing, yet evidently mean another, as it shifts over the moment the post changes.
>>2715>"The issue is that someone can be perfectly logical and still completely utterly wrong, but think they're right because they followed some neckbeard formulas in thinking. It encourages stupidity presenting itself as a legitimate form of academic arts. Philosophy is cringe."Every single word of this can apply to those "academic arts".
And that's under your own admission, here.
You've agreed at this point that academia can fail.
That they can be wrong.
And yet, logic is somehow the usurper, the villain, for the same woes.
And this is assuming, stupidly, that they are distinctive, besides. That academia does not utilize logic routinely.
There's some remarkably backwards presupposition at play that logic is the realm of philosophy, unconnected to science. As though logic is not the method by which one operates, when conducting themselves through that academic process.