- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
What is wrong with you mouth breathing neanderthals? Do you think there are only 6 countries in the whole world? I doubt you could even name 10 principles that America was founded on and yet we have to list to you assholes constantly ramble on about your fake patriotism bullshit. You would be more at home in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany. There you can solute on command and be sent to prison for bad mouthing your country or its dear leader. Grow a brain and\or a spine you fascist sheep.
Mathematics is the language of science and has enabled mankind to make extraordinary technological advances. There is no question that the logic and order that underpins mathematics, has served us in describing the patterns and structure we find in nature.
The successes that have been achieved, from the mathematics of the cosmos down to electronic devices at the microscale, are significant. Einstein remarked, “How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?”
Amongst mathematicians and scientists there is no consensus on this fascinating question. The various types of responses to Einstein’s conundrum include:
1) Math is innate. The reason mathematics is the natural language of science, is that the universe is underpinned by the same order. The structures of mathematics are intrinsic to nature. Moreover, if the universe disappeared tomorrow, our eternal mathematical truths would still exist. It is up to us to discover mathematics and its workings—this will then assist us in building models that will give us predictive power and understanding of the physical phenomena we seek to control. This rather romantic position is what I loosely call mathematical Platonism.
2) Math is a human construct. The only reason mathematics is admirably suited describing the physical world is that we invented it to do just that. It is a product of the human mind and we make mathematics up as we go along to suit our purposes. If the universe disappeared, there would be no mathematics in the same way that there would be no football, tennis, chess or any other set of rules with relational structures that we contrived. Mathematics is not discovered, it is invented. This is the non-Platonist position.
3) Math is not so successful. Those that marvel at the ubiquity of mathematical applications have perhaps been seduced by an overstatement of their successes. Analytical mathematical equations only approximately describe the real world, and even then only describe a limited subset of all the phenomena around us. We tend to focus on those physical problems for which we find a way to apply mathematics, so overemphasis on these successes is a form of “cherry picking.” This is the realist position.
4) Keep calm and carry on. What matters is that mathematics produces results. Save the hot air for philosophers. This is called the “shut up and calculate” position.
The debate over the fundamental nature of mathematics is by no means new, and has raged since the time of the Pythagoreans. Can we use our hindsight now to shed any light on the above four positions?
A recent development within the last century was the discovery of fractals. Beautiful complex patterns, such as the Mandelbrot set, can be generated from simple iterative equations. Mathematical Platonists eagerly point out that elegant fractal patterns are common in nature, and that mathematicians clearly discover rather than invent them. A counterargument is that any set of rules has emergent properties. For example, the rules of chess are clearly a human contrivance, yet they result in a set of elegant and sometimes surprising characteristics. There are infinite numbers of possible iterative equations one can possibly construct, and if we focus on the small subset that result in beautiful fractal patterns we have merely seduced ourselves.
Take the example of infinite monkeys on keyboards. It appears miraculous when an individual monkey types a Shakespeare sonnet. But when we see the whole context, we realize all the monkeys are merely typing gibberish. In a similar way, it is easy to be seduced into thinking that mathematics is miraculously innate if we are overly focused on its successes, without viewing the complete picture.
The non-Platonist view is that, first, all mathematical models are approximations of reality. Second, our models fail, they go through a process of revision, and we invent new mathematics as needed. Analytical mathematical expressions are a product of the human mind, tailored for the mind. Because of our limited brainpower we seek out compact elegant mathematical descriptions to make predictions. Those predictions are not guaranteed to be correct, and experimental verification is always required. What we have witnessed over the past few decades, as transistor sizes have shrunk, is that nice compact mathematical expressions for ultra small transistors are not possible. We could use highly cumbersome equations, but that isn’t the point of mathematics. So we resort to computer simulations using empirical models. And this is how much of cutting edge engineering is done these days.
The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or RNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells. ... Those genes that code for proteins are composed of tri-nucleotide units called codons, each coding for a single amino acid. Codes are a human construct that people use to help make information palatable to the human mind. We haven't reached the level of knowledge to which we can cast off the shackles of simplification. We are at the level of 2+2=4. Hopefully we will one day reach the realization that there is no 2 or 4. These are mathematical constructs designed by the human condition. Nature doesn't require mathematical constructs or codes. The universe isn't conscious so it does not care,feel, or think. It just is. The odds that life or the universe could exist as it is now are so astronomically great that it would seem impossible that either one could exist at all, but it must exist in one form or another otherwise it wouldn't exist. If you take all the rocks in the world and tried to find one that fit perfectly in a shot glass, you would most likely never find one. However, if your pour water into the glass it will conform to the shape of the glass, but that doesn't mean that water was designed to fit perfectly in the glass. The water is the nature of things and the glass is how we perceive them.
I don't understand this premise. New genetic code is written with every new generation so we know that it is a random nationally occurring product of evolution. The genetic code in my body isn't completely the same as yours or anyone else's even though we are all human. If it was then we would be clones or at least twins and detectives wouldn't be able to use DNA to catch criminals. Life gradually becomes more and more complex as more genetic code is generated through mutation.
3 ounces of meat is all a person needs in a given day. Humans are omnivorous so we need a mix of different kinds of food to be healthy. There is a reason why people who eat mostly meat get fat and are far more likely to die from heart disease. You can't fight genetic limitations.
There for we should only farm fruits, vegetables, and grains. Meat should only be acquired through hunting while also regulating it to protect animal populations.
This debate topic doesn't make sense.
1. Genetically, everyone is at least 2% African because that is where all people originate from.
Race is irrelevant relative to the human species as a whole.
2. You can't self identify as a different species, especially if you aren't genetically or morphologically compatible. Humans are classified as apes but that isn't a species. It's a group classifications. You can't proclaim to be a dog but you are an animal, mammal, and a vertebrate. We have an 87% genetic compatibility with dogs.
A new review of 63 scientific studies stretching back over decades has concluded that religious people are less intelligent than non-believers.
A piece of University of Rochester analysis, led by Professor Miron Zuckerman, found “a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity” in 53 out of 63 studies.
According to the study entitled, 'The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations', published in the 'Personality and Social Psychology Review', even during early years the more intelligent a child is the more likely it would be to turn away from religion.
In old age above average intelligence people are less likely to believe, the researchers also found.
One of the studies used in Zuckerman's paper was a life-long analysis of the beliefs of 1,500 gifted children with with IQs over 135.
The study began in 1921 and continues today. Even in extreme old age the subjects had much lower levels of religious belief than the average population.
The review, which is the first systematic meta-analysis of the 63 studies conducted in between 1928 and 2012, showed that of the 63 studies, 53 showed a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, while 10 showed a positive one.
Only two studies showed significant positive correlations and significant negative correlations were seen in a total of 35 studies.
The authors of the review looked at each study independently, taking into account the quality of data collection, the size of the sample and the analysis methods used.
The three psychologists carrying out the review defined intelligence as the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience”.
Religiosity is defined by the psychologists as involvement in some (or all) facets of religion.
According to the review, other factors - such as gender or education - did not make any difference to the correlation between intelligence and religious belief.
The level of belief, or otherwise, did however vary dependent upon age with the correlation found to be weakest among the pre-college population.
The paper concludes that: "Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme —the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who 'know better'."
Criticisms of the conclusions include that the paper only deals with a definition of analytic intelligence and fails to consider newly identified forms of creative and emotional intelligence.
The psychologists who carried out the review also sought to pre-empt the secularist interpretation of the findings by suggesting that more intelligent people are less likely to have religious beliefs as they associate themselves with ideas around personal control.
"Intelligent people typically spend more time in school - a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits," the researchers wrote.
"More intelligent people get higher level jobs (and better employment (and higher salary) may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs."