ydoaPs

Observation o counts as evidence for h iff P(h|k&o)>P(h|k) where k is our background knowledge. It's really that simple. Faith is precisely the rejection of that and popularity doesn't meet the requirement.

Philosophy breaks down into three categories, though many subjects of study intermingle them (things are hardly ever so clear cut). The first ('first' as in it is the one I arbitrarily picked to talk about before the other two) category is called 'Epistemology' and it is the study of how we know. 'Know', here, is a technical word and is, at a minimum, 'justifiably believe something true'. That minimal requirement gives us two of the three large areas of study in epistemology. Justification being the study of what the grounds on which we can rationally believe something are. Truth is usually defined in the spirit of Tarsky's requirement. Some people find that this definition of 'know' is insufficient to accurately describe what we usually mean by 'knowledge', so they pose what have come to be called Gettier problems. This takes the definition of knowledge to "justified true belief +an anti-Gettier condition" and the last major area of study in epistemology is coming up with/arguing for/arguing against various anti-Gettier conditions. The second category (again, in an arbitrarily chosen order) is called 'Metaphysics' and, loosely, is about what we can know. More accurately, it is about what there is, and what there could have been. The study of what there is is called "Ontology" and the study of what there could have been is modality. The first is about things like whether or not fields are existing things in the real world or whether they are nothing more than mathematical tools. Ontology usually studies the foundations of scientific theories-things taken by the theories as assumptions. The second is really just an exercise in modal logic. The last category is ethics which is obviously the study of what we are to do and, maybe even more importantly, why. Broadly speaking, the competing ethical theories fall into one of four categories: Consequentialism, Deontology, Virtue Ethics, and Error Theory. Consequentialist theories say that what is right or wrong has to do with the consequences of the action. Deontological theories say that what is right or wrong is about whether or not a rule was followed. Virtue Ethics says that what is right or wrong is about what makes you a good or bad person. Error Theory is basically a fancy word for what we used to call 'Nihilism'. Error theorists say that we speak of right and wrong despite there being no such things. Actually, science started out as (and still is) a subset of philosophy. Actually, philosophy mainly deals with the how as well. 'Why' is vague and either means 'how' or is about the intention of an agent and as such is worthless to philosophy.

5. If space is infinitely dense, then a 1cm stick contains all of the information we could ever have.

3. The energy of 10 Big Macs from any country/region is far more than enough to move a car 35km. E2=(mc2)2+(pc)2 Assuming we can focus all of the energy and that the car and Big Mac are at rest wrt each other, E2Big Mac=KE2car. (mc2)2=(0.5mcarv2)2 mc2=0.5mcarv2 2mc2=mcarv2 mBig Mac=200g mcar=1500kg So, v2=2(2x10-1*9x1016)/1.5x103)=24x1012 So, vcar=5x106 m/s How much do you think the rolling friction is? And that was for one Big Mac.

There is a limit to the number of neg rep you can give in a 24hr period.

fixed

Indeed.

You must not know much about paleoanthropology then. Tell me, how on earth does paleoanthropology suggest that the handaxe was developed by an individual? Tell me how paleoanthropology suggests that early humans weren't social animals despite ceremonial burials.

.....because humans are social animals. How do you think your family (look at that, a social structure) got to where you were born rather than Amur? Your profile says you're interested in Anthropology, yet you buck it entirely without any basis and contrary to literally all evidence and even basic common sense.

Dear gods, no. I don't even know where to start as your post is essentially gibberish.

Being less likely to get eaten by a tiger. Or the entirety of your lifestyle.

Considering the professional breakdown in philosophy, that's a bit misleading (even in the field of philosophy whose purpose is to ignore the rest and pretend that you can justify that God exists, a randomly selected philosopher is over 6 times more likely to be an atheist than a randomly selected US adult). More accurately, philosophy breaks down into essentially three categories: 1) How can we know? (epistemology) 2) What can we know? (metaphysics [although, a better sound bite would be "what there is and what there might have been"]) 3) How are we to live? (ethics)

A friend of mine brought a prototype of a new design over to my house over the weekend. What we did with it: print shot glasses, bracelets, a bike derailer, and a fun little gear thing. Actually, the patent for laser 3-d printing expires this year or next year. With that method, you get higher density and can more easily print metal.

That's how I usually do it too. Although , one could always skip the LaTeX and use Unicode for the greek and just |> for the rest.

! Moderator Note To prevent taking the thread off-topic, an off-topic post has been given its own thread.

! Moderator Note Let's keep the discussion on ideas, not people.

According to the OT, he DID write part of it. XD

This is a good start. You're forgetting the bit where none of those have been demonstrated. Ever.

Not everyone is a literalist. Last I checked, Trip was a deisty thingy with a sprinkle of a bit more than historical Jesus on top. And I think he might be a moral fictionalist anyway.

One guy with terrible critiques doesn't count as "heavily". And, btw, all physics papers are heavily critiqued. It's called peer review. Show me one that lets even two variables vary. If you sincerely find this to be a flaw in the work, then you can't stand behind any paper that has found fine tuning in the history of the human race.

So, no. I thought as much since you didn't even know what multivariable analysis is. Find even one paper that does the math correctly and finds fine tuning yet?

Do you know what any of those words mean?

So, you didn't read a word I said, did you?

What does that, combined with the fact that there is not a single paper which finds fine tuning that has allowed multivariation, tell you about the fine-tuning argument? Oh, boys and girls, we're only on the first bit of why fine-tuning is predicated on a false assumption (which isn't the only problem with it, btw). Not only is the false premise based on faulty math, it's also based on faulty metaphysics.

Did you even read that paper? On top of its carbon chauvinism, it uses things that it even admits are speculative as requirements for life. Then the others don't even show the requirements aren't met. Have you found a single paper that finds fine-tuning which does the requisite multivariable analysis yet?