Replies to mrdee, page 21
-
@dawson This site is dum. http://rainbowdash.net/attachment/813794
-
@dawson So basically my point is there are different ways of approaching the idea of knowledge. Do I know that 2+2=4? Maybe. At the end of the day it's up for us as people to decide our philosophies on such concepts based on how we understand them.
-
If you insist I'll try and expand a bit. So like, math is a concept with rules, right? Cool. So within the confines of a mathematical context, using the set of real numbers as defined by the laws of mathematics we can determine 2 added to another 2 will result in 4. Now, the tricky part, like I mentioned earlier, comes with the epistemological side of this problem. Like, an empiricist might argue without tangible perception of this concept outside of its representation on paper there's no way of "knowing" it, whereas a rationalist might say knowledge is innate and therefore by thinking of 2+2=4 you prove that you know it. A follower of skepticism might say that the idea of 2 added to itself equaling 4 is not innate and is being manipulated by a force outside of our own minds, using a contrast case as an example, but a verificationist could argue this by saying that the use of math as a system validates and therefores proves the knowledge of 2+2=4.
-
@dawson Depends. Mathematically, yes. From an epistemological perspective, not entirely.
-
-
@dawson These memes are funnier when they're not selecting the most obvious triangles
-
@dawson what was
-
@dawson that is illuminoti it at all
-
@dawson is the number you were thinking of 2
-
@dawson uhh, you're thinking of a number between 1 and 3 obviously
