Olympics 2012

[Lucifer]

-i is not equal to i

There is no -i though. sqrt(-1)^2 = -1, not -i.

You made the assumption that if:

Code: Select all

ad   bc
-- = --
bd   bd

then:

Code: Select all

ad = bc

for complex numbers.

Did not, I resolved all the radicals. The square root of 1 is +-1, and the square root of -1 is i. Becuase -1 * -1 = 1, and 1 * 1 = 1.

[Jonathan]

Code: Select all

a = d = 1 = sqrt(1)

b = c = i = sqrt(-1)

ad   1^2   1
-- = --- = - = -i
bd   1i    i

bc   i^2   -1
-- = --- = -- = i
bd   1i     i

[Sabarai]

You can't lock 2 variables to one number, that way you will always get that. Neither can you have 2 variables equal to eachother.

I always thought -1 * -1 = 1...

[Sabarai]

I'm telling that it may have looked like someone walked on water by the water reflections.

Oscilloscope is right, evolution is the key to modern biology. Note: there are discussions in my country to scrap the bibles theory on how spiecies came on earth and only teach the evolution.

[Lucifer]

Jonathan, you need to resolve all of your radicals. sqrt(1) has two solutions, { -1, 1 }.

ANd the identity property rules out the conclusion of the proof, but allows one solution of the proof. Formalising something into a "proof" doesn't make it true...

sab: I'd be perfectly happy if evolution were taught and the socalled THeory of Creation were allowed to die. How can 2000 years of science be disregarded in favor of dogma? I don't get it, doesn't make sense to me. I don't see why my tax dollars should be used to fund religion, and if parents want their kids to learn about religion, they can take 'em to Sunday School.

[Sabarai]

Evolution is taught at my school, in 3 classes (3 levels, 3 different years)but when u r 12 u get the bible's thought on it. but i don't think i need to know it for my exams, i do need evolution though. But it's good that people can belive in something, but they shouldn't be blind for anything different than religion, like fundamentalists...

[Lucifer]

Don't get me wrong, the Bible has some good content that is useful and relevant to day-to-day living. We're just so far along that there's no reasonable way the Bible can be taken literally anymore. Hell, there's a lot of speculation that Jesus was a fictional character created for the purpose of expounding the philosophy (similar to Socrates, who is not known to have been a real person or a fictional character Plato created for the same purpose).

There's every possibility the Bible's take on the birth of the universe will turn out to be true in some form or other. I've heard strong arguments that did a very good job of reconciling the Bible with modern science (they start with "How long is a day to God?"). While I don't accept them as truth, there's still every possibility that the ancients knew things that we don't know now, but they didn't know how else to describe the things they knew, requriing a less than literal understanding. The problem there is that when you read it figuratively, any passage can figuratively refer to almost anything else.

A philosophy I've been finding really groovy lately is the idea that Judgement Day isn't something that happens after you die, rather it's more like "On the day that you die, when you look back over your life, what do you want to think about it? Do you want to regret it? Do you want to think you did good? Well, you could die any day, at any time, and for any reason." So a figurative Judgement Day actually fits in very well with my own personal philosophy, painting Jesus as a wise man (dammit!).

If the Bible were taught in schools as philosophy along with other philosophical works, I have no problem with that. I also don't see how fundamentalists can have a real problem with it since all it does is deepen a person's understanding of the work, and they are free to supplement it with education based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, and the end result will be critical-thinking fundamentalists, or better fundamentalists. So their own specific needs are addressed in that context, and the needs of the more secular types are also addresses. Finally, the needs of other faiths are also addressed with regards to Christianity and the door is opened to include their own philosophical treatises in the education system, again with the end result of not upsetting the status quo, really, but instead providing a better education for all. But in each case, if any specific group has more requirements for the education of their kids in regards to their religion, they are responsible for providing their own supplemental education.

I don't see how that's so unreasonable, really. The teachers can be required to say "We're not accepting this as truth nor are we dismissing it as not truth, that's for you to decide. We're going to study it as philosophy, and we're going to study it in detail because that provides the most benefit for the largest group of students and is a reasonable way to spend public money. If you wish to study it another way, you will have to take up those studies on your own time."

I guess the root of the problem, at least in the US, is that philosophy isn't taught at all. Even when you go to university, philosophy is just one humanities elective, so unless you're a humanities major you can get through all your formal education without ever studying philosophy, which is really a shame. While there are many parts of philosophy that I find quite absurd, I consider myself a better person for having read and studied the philosophy I've covered, even if I thought it was dumb. How can we even approach political philosophy without a foundation in philosophy? Oh yeah, the extent of our "political philosophy" is "The US is the best, there can be no better, and everyone else sucks, and you better not try to change anything because we like it the way it is".

[Fonkay]

Religion is dangerous. It was/is a source of lynch mobs, genocide, racism, sexism, motives for terrorism, loss of human rights, etc. I could go on.
Sure it does some good. But does that really counterpoise the negative?

[Sabarai]

Religion keeps mankind alive, it makes us not be like other animals...

[Fonkay]

You're right, animals kill for food and/or protection.
Luckily, we're more civil.

[Sabarai]

Humans can form an opinion by their beliefs, religion or no religion.

Animals can't.

[Lucifer]

Humans can form an opinion by their beliefs, religion or no religion.

Animals can't.

You don't know that for a fact, and recent psychological studies have indicated that animals are capable of higher intelligence than previously thought.

Religion is not a prerequisite for morality, otherwise how could you explain all the highly idealistic Free Software zealots that coincidentally don't believe in God or any of that crap?

[Phytotron]

One doesn't need one iota of religion, supernaturalism, or spiritualism in order to form beliefs, philosophy, politics, ethics, or morals. The brain works fine on its own, hopefully with a little help from reason. In fact, the "moral sense," as it's called, evolved (that is to say, is inherent) long before religion was developed (and is present in all social species). I'd recommend reading material by Michael Shermer, Steven Pinker, E.O. Wilson, and Richard Dawkins.

As for schools, only evolution should be taught in science classes. Creationism or "Intelligent Design" don't deserve one bit of equal time or consideration. They aren't science; it's that simple. (News flash: State board of education replaces Sex Ed. with stories about the Stork delivering babies.)

Should the Bible be taught in classes such as humanities, comparative religion, or philosophy? Sure, so long as it's not given priority or greater credence. (I still have yet to read the Bible as a whole. Some of my other nonreligious/atheist friends and correspondants have said I should, reason being that Christianity has such a prevalence in American and Western culture. And if nothing else, it gives one more knowledge with which to debate fundies. We'll see.)

To the matter of the lack of those sorts of classes being taught in schools, you're right. I would also add that not only isn't philosophy usually taught, but neither are civics, political science, or critical thinking (that is to say, classes devoted solely to these subjects). I think they certainly should be, all three (although, poli-sci classes in the US tend to lean toward endorsing the right and laissez-faire capitalism). Music and art programs are a dying breed as well. Computers, athletics, and vocation seem to be the current wave (along with standardized teaching-to-the-tests). I think it's a shame. Liberal studies is going out the window. Consequently, more and more myopic, shallow, and generally stupid people are being produced. But hey, they can fill a slot as a cog in some company, so all is well. Someone has to provide the shoulders on which Microsoft and Wal-Mart pursue their domination of the world, right? Har.

[Phytotron]

Religion is not a prerequisite for morality, otherwise how could you explain all the highly idealistic Free Software zealots that coincidentally don't believe in God or any of that crap?

See above. Also, I read in Wired once that of those who use the web and are techies, there's a significant disproportion of big-L Libertarians. Presumably, many of them are Ayn Randists, so-called Objectivists, who are atheistic. Hell, in some venues they seem nearly ubiquitous. (I happen to think Rand and Objectivism is a load of crap, but yeah.) Don't know whether that stat still holds up. New Agers and other similar flakes seem to be catching up to them, heh.

[root down]

only on these forums can a topic about the olympics precipitate into bullshit like this