[quote=devilesk][quote=Dapperdan][quote=devilesk][quote=AntiSleep] It is bad, almost like watching children argue about the existence of Santa.[/quote] Yea, because Santa does exist so there's no point in arguing about it. If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists. Curry paradox ftw.[/quote] A premise that proves everything true proves nothing true. ;)[/quote] No.[/quote] Devilesk. Go learn logic. True imply false is false.

Quote from devilesk

Quote from Dapperdan

Quote from devilesk

Quote from AntiSleep

It is bad, almost like watching children argue about the existence of Santa.

Yea, because Santa does exist so there's no point in arguing about it.

If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists.

Curry paradox ftw.

A premise that proves everything true proves nothing true.

No.

Devilesk. Go learn logic. True imply false is false.

[quote=cheeze][quote=devilesk][quote=Dapperdan][quote=devilesk][quote=AntiSleep] It is bad, almost like watching children argue about the existence of Santa.[/quote] Yea, because Santa does exist so there's no point in arguing about it. If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists. Curry paradox ftw.[/quote] A premise that proves everything true proves nothing true. ;)[/quote] No.[/quote] Devilesk. Go learn logic. True imply false is false.[/quote] Santa Claus exists is false?

Quote from cheeze

Quote from devilesk

Quote from Dapperdan

Quote from devilesk

Quote from AntiSleep

It is bad, almost like watching children argue about the existence of Santa.

Yea, because Santa does exist so there's no point in arguing about it.

If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists.

Curry paradox ftw.

A premise that proves everything true proves nothing true.

No.

Devilesk. Go learn logic. True imply false is false.

Santa Claus exists is false?

Not necessarily. However, your first statement is true by the nature of if statements. However, in an implication, this would be inconclusive since True implies True is True and True implies False is False. Thus, Dapperdan is correct in that it proves nothing.

Not necessarily. However, your first statement is true by the nature of if statements. However, in an implication, this would be inconclusive since True implies True is True and True implies False is False. Thus, Dapperdan is correct in that it proves nothing.

[quote=cheeze]Not necessarily. However, your first statement is true by the nature of if statements. However, in an implication, this would be inconclusive since True implies True is True and True implies False is False. Thus, Dapperdan is correct in that it proves nothing.[/quote] True implies True is True

Quote from cheeze

Not necessarily. However, your first statement is true by the nature of if statements. However, in an implication, this would be inconclusive since True implies True is True and True implies False is False. Thus, Dapperdan is correct in that it proves nothing.

True implies True is True

The existence, or lack thereof, of Santa is inconsequential, that is half of my point. The other half implies that the debates in question are childish.

The existence, or lack thereof, of Santa is inconsequential, that is half of my point. The other half implies that the debates in question are childish.

[quote=AntiSleep]The existence, or lack thereof, of Santa is inconsequential, that is half of my point. The other half implies that the debates in question are childish.[/quote] Inconsequential to what, and what debates in question?

Quote from AntiSleep

The existence, or lack thereof, of Santa is inconsequential, that is half of my point. The other half implies that the debates in question are childish.

Inconsequential to what, and what debates in question?

[quote=devilesk][quote=cheeze]Not necessarily. However, your first statement is true by the nature of if statements. However, in an implication, this would be inconclusive since True implies True is True and True implies False is False. Thus, Dapperdan is correct in that it proves nothing.[/quote] True implies True is True[/quote] So you admit it's inconclusive. I win. :d

Quote from devilesk

Quote from cheeze

Not necessarily. However, your first statement is true by the nature of if statements. However, in an implication, this would be inconclusive since True implies True is True and True implies False is False. Thus, Dapperdan is correct in that it proves nothing.

True implies True is True

So you admit it's inconclusive. I win.

[quote=cheeze][quote=devilesk][quote=cheeze]Not necessarily. However, your first statement is true by the nature of if statements. However, in an implication, this would be inconclusive since True implies True is True and True implies False is False. Thus, Dapperdan is correct in that it proves nothing.[/quote] True implies True is True[/quote] So you admit it's inconclusive. I win. :d[/quote] How is it inconclusive? Your post is too concise and your meaning therefore becomes obscured. I'm sure you have an idea of your own "meaning", but you have failed to communicate it to the fullest extent to which meaning can ever be communicated to another. In other words, elaborate.

Quote from cheeze

Quote from devilesk

Quote from cheeze

Not necessarily. However, your first statement is true by the nature of if statements. However, in an implication, this would be inconclusive since True implies True is True and True implies False is False. Thus, Dapperdan is correct in that it proves nothing.

True implies True is True

So you admit it's inconclusive. I win.

How is it inconclusive? Your post is too concise and your meaning therefore becomes obscured. I'm sure you have an idea of your own "meaning", but you have failed to communicate it to the fullest extent to which meaning can ever be communicated to another. In other words, elaborate.

Don't argue with him cheeze, Curry's paradox is one of the unsolved ones. :p X denotes that Y follows from the truth of X. (In this case X = this statement is true , Y = Santa exists.) X = X → Y, So X = Y.

Don't argue with him cheeze, Curry's paradox is one of the unsolved ones.

X denotes that Y follows from the truth of X. (In this case X = this statement is true , Y = Santa exists.)

X = X → Y, So X = Y.

If one equation has infinite answers, it is inconclusive. If one equation has no answer, it is inconclusive. As to say, there is no definate answer. We could keep going like this. X = X, X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' or... X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z'... and so on. You'd be repeating in circles.

If one equation has infinite answers, it is inconclusive. If one equation has no answer, it is inconclusive.
As to say, there is no definate answer. We could keep going like this.

X = X, X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z'
or...
X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' =X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z' = X = Y = Z = X' = Y' = Z'... and so on. You'd be repeating in circles.

[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry_paradox#In_mathematical_logic]Read Wikipedia[/URL] guys. By logic, if devilesk's statement is true, then Santa Clause does indeed exist. However, since we are not idiots, we are forced to conclude that devilesk's statement is indeed false. Logic cannot prove the validity of a premise, only of its implications. Good thing we have these things called brains.

Read Wikipedia guys. By logic, if devilesk's statement is true, then Santa Clause does indeed exist. However, since we are not idiots, we are forced to conclude that devilesk's statement is indeed false. Logic cannot prove the validity of a premise, only of its implications. Good thing we have these things called brains.

[quote=frazz][URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry_paradox#In_mathematical_logic]Read Wikipedia[/URL] guys. By logic, if devilesk's statement is true, then Santa Clause does indeed exist. However, since we are not idiots, we are forced to conclude that devilesk's statement is indeed false. Logic cannot prove the validity of a premise, only of its implications. Good thing we have these things called brains.[/quote] Read Wikipedia better Frazz. He's presenting a logical paradox with no known solution. [i]If[/i] the statement were to be true Santa Claus exists, it is self-referential, and is therefore always true. If. Not because.

Quote from frazz

Read Wikipedia guys. By logic, if devilesk's statement is true, then Santa Clause does indeed exist. However, since we are not idiots, we are forced to conclude that devilesk's statement is indeed false. Logic cannot prove the validity of a premise, only of its implications. Good thing we have these things called brains.

Read Wikipedia better Frazz.

He's presenting a logical paradox with no known solution. If the statement were to be true Santa Claus exists, it is self-referential, and is therefore always true. If. Not because.

[QUOTE=Syphon]If the statement were to be true [B]then[/B] Santa Claus exists, it is self-referential, and is therefore always true.[/QUOTE] Is that what you meant to say, otherwise it doesn't make sense. If this is the case, compare to what I said. [QUOTE=me]if devilesk's statement is true, then Santa Clause does indeed exist[/QUOTE] If you said exactly what you meant (or is it meant exactly what you said? either way you catch my drift) then you're basically saying if the statement is true then the statement is true (I think). Or maybe I'm not getting something.

Quote from Syphon

If the statement were to be true then Santa Claus exists, it is self-referential, and is therefore always true.

Is that what you meant to say, otherwise it doesn't make sense. If this is the case, compare to what I said.

Quote from me

if devilesk's statement is true, then Santa Clause does indeed exist

If you said exactly what you meant (or is it meant exactly what you said? either way you catch my drift) then you're basically saying if the statement is true then the statement is true (I think). Or maybe I'm not getting something.

The statement essentially breaks down to, "If Santa Claus exists, then Santa Claus exists".

The statement essentially breaks down to, "If Santa Claus exists, then Santa Claus exists".

[quote=devilesk][quote=cheeze][quote=devilesk][quote=cheeze]Not necessarily. However, your first statement is true by the nature of if statements. However, in an implication, this would be inconclusive since True implies True is True and True implies False is False. Thus, Dapperdan is correct in that it proves nothing.[/quote] True implies True is True[/quote] So you admit it's inconclusive. I win. :d[/quote] How is it inconclusive? Your post is too concise and your meaning therefore becomes obscured. I'm sure you have an idea of your own "meaning", but you have failed to communicate it to the fullest extent to which meaning can ever be communicated to another. In other words, elaborate.[/quote] Fair enough. Let me say it clearly and precisely so you may understand: stop using naive set theory.

Quote from devilesk

Quote from cheeze

Quote from devilesk

Quote from cheeze

Not necessarily. However, your first statement is true by the nature of if statements. However, in an implication, this would be inconclusive since True implies True is True and True implies False is False. Thus, Dapperdan is correct in that it proves nothing.

True implies True is True

So you admit it's inconclusive. I win.

How is it inconclusive? Your post is too concise and your meaning therefore becomes obscured. I'm sure you have an idea of your own "meaning", but you have failed to communicate it to the fullest extent to which meaning can ever be communicated to another. In other words, elaborate.

Fair enough. Let me say it clearly and precisely so you may understand: stop using naive set theory.

[quote=cheeze][quote=devilesk][quote=cheeze][quote=devilesk][quote=cheeze]Not necessarily. However, your first statement is true by the nature of if statements. However, in an implication, this would be inconclusive since True implies True is True and True implies False is False. Thus, Dapperdan is correct in that it proves nothing.[/quote] True implies True is True[/quote] So you admit it's inconclusive. I win. :d[/quote] How is it inconclusive? Your post is too concise and your meaning therefore becomes obscured. I'm sure you have an idea of your own "meaning", but you have failed to communicate it to the fullest extent to which meaning can ever be communicated to another. In other words, elaborate.[/quote] Fair enough. Let me say it clearly and precisely so you may understand: stop using naive set theory.[/quote] Fair enough.

Quote from cheeze

Quote from devilesk

Quote from cheeze

Quote from devilesk

Quote from cheeze

Not necessarily. However, your first statement is true by the nature of if statements. However, in an implication, this would be inconclusive since True implies True is True and True implies False is False. Thus, Dapperdan is correct in that it proves nothing.

True implies True is True

So you admit it's inconclusive. I win.

How is it inconclusive? Your post is too concise and your meaning therefore becomes obscured. I'm sure you have an idea of your own "meaning", but you have failed to communicate it to the fullest extent to which meaning can ever be communicated to another. In other words, elaborate.

Fair enough. Let me say it clearly and precisely so you may understand: stop using naive set theory.

Fair enough.

For those of you who desire a more professional definition: [b]SCIENCE[/b] [i]In its broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[1][2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines: Natural sciences, which study natural phenomena (including biological life), and Social sciences, which study human behavior and societies. These groupings are empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being experimented for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[2] Mathematics, which is sometimes classified within a third group of science called formal science, has both similarities and differences with the natural and social sciences.[2] It is similar to empirical sciences in that it involves an objective, careful and systematic study of an area of knowledge; it is different because of its method of verifying its knowledge, using a priori rather than empirical methods.[2] Formal science, which also includes statistics and logic, is vital to the empirical sciences. Major advances in formal science have often led to major advances in the physical and biological sciences. The formal sciences are essential in the formation of hypotheses, theories, and laws,[2] both in discovering and describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people think and act (social sciences).[/i] [b]PSEUDOSCIENCE[/b] [i]Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method,[2][3][4] lacks supporting evidence or plausibility,[5] or otherwise lacks scientific status.[6] The term comes from the Greek root pseudo- (false or pretending) and "science" (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"). An early recorded use was in 1843 by French physiologist François Magendie,[1] who is considered a pioneer in experimental physiology. As it is taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific or whose proponents state is scientific but nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement, or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method.[7] Professor Paul DeHart Hurd[8] argued that a large part of gaining scientific literacy is "being able to distinguish science from pseudo-science such as astrology, quackery, the occult, and superstition".[9] Certain introductory survey classes in science take careful pains to delineate the objections scientists and skeptics have to practices that make direct claims contradicted by the scientific discipline in question.[10] Beyond the initial introductory analyses offered in science classes, there is some epistemological disagreement about the extent to which it is possible to distinguish "science" from "pseudoscience" in a reliable and objective way.[11] The term itself has negative connotations, because it is used to indicate that subjects so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science.[12] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating a "pseudoscience" normally reject this classification. Pseudosciences have been characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development.[/i] [b]METAPHYSICS[/b] [i]Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy investigating principles of reality transcending those of any particular science, traditionally, cosmology and ontology. It is concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world.[1] The term "metaphysician" and "ontology" should not be confused with "physician" as the latter terms refer to a practioner of medicine and the specialised field of oncology, respectively. The word derives from the Greek words μετά (metá) (meaning "after") and φυσικά (physiká) (meaning "physics"), "physics" referring to those works on matter by Aristotle in antiquity. The prefix meta- ("after") was attached to the chapters in Aristotle's work that physically followed after the chapters on "physics", in posthumously edited collections. Aristotle called some of the subjects treated there "first philosophy", which later came to be synonymous with "metaphysics". Over time, the meaning of "meta" has shifted to mean "beyond; above; transcending" in English.[citation needed] Therefore, metaphysics is also the study of that which transcends physics. Many philosophers such as Immanuel Kant would later argue that certain questions concerning metaphysics (notably those surrounding the existence of God, soul, and freedom) are inherent to human reason and have always intrigued mankind.[/i]

For those of you who desire a more professional definition:

SCIENCE
In its broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[1][2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word.

Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:

Natural sciences, which study natural phenomena (including biological life), and
Social sciences, which study human behavior and societies.
These groupings are empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being experimented for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[2]

Mathematics, which is sometimes classified within a third group of science called formal science, has both similarities and differences with the natural and social sciences.[2] It is similar to empirical sciences in that it involves an objective, careful and systematic study of an area of knowledge; it is different because of its method of verifying its knowledge, using a priori rather than empirical methods.[2] Formal science, which also includes statistics and logic, is vital to the empirical sciences. Major advances in formal science have often led to major advances in the physical and biological sciences. The formal sciences are essential in the formation of hypotheses, theories, and laws,[2] both in discovering and describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people think and act (social sciences).

PSEUDOSCIENCE
Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method,[2][3][4] lacks supporting evidence or plausibility,[5] or otherwise lacks scientific status.[6] The term comes from the Greek root pseudo- (false or pretending) and "science" (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"). An early recorded use was in 1843 by French physiologist François Magendie,[1] who is considered a pioneer in experimental physiology.

As it is taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific or whose proponents state is scientific but nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement, or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method.[7] Professor Paul DeHart Hurd[8] argued that a large part of gaining scientific literacy is "being able to distinguish science from pseudo-science such as astrology, quackery, the occult, and superstition".[9] Certain introductory survey classes in science take careful pains to delineate the objections scientists and skeptics have to practices that make direct claims contradicted by the scientific discipline in question.[10]

Beyond the initial introductory analyses offered in science classes, there is some epistemological disagreement about the extent to which it is possible to distinguish "science" from "pseudoscience" in a reliable and objective way.[11] The term itself has negative connotations, because it is used to indicate that subjects so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science.[12] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating a "pseudoscience" normally reject this classification.

Pseudosciences have been characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development.

METAPHYSICS
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy investigating principles of reality transcending those of any particular science, traditionally, cosmology and ontology. It is concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world.[1] The term "metaphysician" and "ontology" should not be confused with "physician" as the latter terms refer to a practioner of medicine and the specialised field of oncology, respectively.

The word derives from the Greek words μετά (metá) (meaning "after") and φυσικά (physiká) (meaning "physics"), "physics" referring to those works on matter by Aristotle in antiquity. The prefix meta- ("after") was attached to the chapters in Aristotle's work that physically followed after the chapters on "physics", in posthumously edited collections. Aristotle called some of the subjects treated there "first philosophy", which later came to be synonymous with "metaphysics". Over time, the meaning of "meta" has shifted to mean "beyond; above; transcending" in English.[citation needed] Therefore, metaphysics is also the study of that which transcends physics. Many philosophers such as Immanuel Kant would later argue that certain questions concerning metaphysics (notably those surrounding the existence of God, soul, and freedom) are inherent to human reason and have always intrigued mankind.

[quote=professional definition from wikipedia]stuff[/quote]lol, Internet professionals...

Quote from professional definition from wikipedia

stuff

lol, Internet professionals...