• 2 Posts
  • 90 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle

  • (E: never mind that, as has already been suggested to you, the theoretical thought experiment in question specifies not only infinite monkeys, but infinite time too, so they’ve not stuck to either parameter)

    Whoah, whoah, whoah… Big critical thinker here thinks the paper is about disproving a thought experiment?

    You understand that this is impossible? Even if it were attempted, such a venture is more a philosophical one, not a mathematicians forte.

    Obviously the paper is not looking at that, it’s doing math

    “Yes, it is true that given infinite resources, any text of any length would inevitably be produced eventually. While true, this also has no relevance to our own universe, as ‘reaching infinity’ in resources is not something which can ever happen.”

    That needing to be pointed out to you is… Well you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t waste my energy “critically thinking” yet 👍



  • Im looking for news that affirms reality.

    You…affirm your reality…by looking forr news…that does so?

    With the intent and purpose of rational thought, it’s supposed to be the other way around.. In by doing this, it is the premise of “fact checking” and the antithesis of misinformation.

    That’s how reality, by definition, works. A statement is made. We look to confirm it. It is real if confirmed. You don’t look for statements to confirm a hypothesis and say, “Well, that’s my reality.”

    What you just said is no different to stating that you look for Google results that back up what you want to hear…

    Are you trying to prove my point for me?

    Trump’s public record words and actions already left no doubt that he’s molested children. This writer’s credible but unsourced account is just to remind people that trump has molested children, something that most people realize from trump’s words, actions, associates attitude.

    That’s unrelated to anything I’ve said and I don’t know why you thought I’d want to hear it.

    When something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, hangs out with ducks, eats bread at the park, and admits in public and private to being a duck - it’s unreasonable to argue that we can’t assume it’s a duck.

    That’s an unrelated example of abductive reasoning. Again, I don’t know why you picked me to share that with. If it bears any relation to what I’ve said, it’s irony in that by saying it, you’re proving my point further.






  • What you’re after is news pieces that confirm your position. Dangerous.

    then it becomes a completely different scenario.

    No. No it does not.

    At the end of the day…

    A guy is saying a dead guy did a thing that makes another guy look bad, right before a big event involving that other guy.

    Literally, this is “Trust me, bro.”

    Be it Trump, Elmo, or a box of Skittles, this preface does not change. Acknowledge that first, then you can go start conversations about Trump molestations as much as you like.

    Don’t be like a red hatter and get caught in echo chambers.


  • Not that I support the guy at all, but you lot really need to stop saying “this is definite” and “it is fact” every time there’s an allegation made about something you don’t like. Not just Trump; anything. Unless you are one, y’all need to save that kind of dumb shit for dumb people, even if you like what you’re hearing.

    Take Trump out of it for a second. This is literally a scenario of…

    "A guy says a dead guy did a thing that makes another guy look bad, right before a big event involving that other guy "

    Could be true. Could be not true. It’s hardly the kind of information that should be landing a half-competent mind onto a decision.








  • saltesc@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyz...
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 days ago

    I don’t want to deflate your assumption, but “Science is pure objectivity and truth”.

    The assumption you introduced just added another layer on by bringing Marxism into it. And here’s the thing with that fallacy; you may be very right! But, it’s got nothing to do with the original statement anymore. It’s just going down tangents of a tangent that should be explored under their own initiative, not the blanket of “science”.


  • saltesc@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyz...
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    It’s not literal; as the fallacy credits, neither is it necessarily wrong. But(!!!), they’re just not related.

    The entire post itself—and your reply—is social science. But science is incapable of alignment to any -ism. All isms are human-made. If they are 100% true, they are not isms.

    Edit: Sorry, I’m drunk af, so probably you are right…maybe… At least in my mind, I’m just reading Statement B as literally as Statement A and therefore can’t see correlation without social agenda—theyre just two very different things. Science and agenda; or agenda using “science”. It’s bias. That’s very unscientific.


  • saltesc@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyz...
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    111
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    This is a clean example of an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

    Statement B attempts to use Statement A to make an unrelated point that isn’t necessarily untrue, but it is still unrelated.

    This could be done with any combination of…

    “Under capitalism, <random thing> is…”
    “Under <random ism>, science is…”

    They would all result in a statement that supports Speaker B, but is no longer relevant to what Speaker A stated, as the topic has changed. In this case, from science to capitalism.

    I.e. It’s an anti-capitalism meme attempting to use science to appeal to a broader audience through relevance fallacy. Both statements may be true, but do not belong in the same picture.

    Unless, of course, “that’s the joke” and I’m just that dumb.

    Edit: I’m not a supporter of capitalism. But I am a supporter of science—haha, like it needs me to exist—and this is an interesting example of social science. It seems personal opinion is paramount to some individuals rather than unbiased assessment of the statement as a whole. Call me boring and autistic, but that’s what science be and anything else isn’t science, it’s just personal opinion, belief, theory, etc.