4 ms·
> As I explained, I am biased towards physics, if anything. It's one thing what you say you're biased towards, it's another thing what you're actually biased t
by 0xBABAD00C 7y ago
> As I explained, I am biased towards physics, if anything.
It's one thing what you say you're biased towards, it's another thing what you're actually biased towards :)
> I'm not sure what your point is.
You're claiming that chemistry had by far the biggest impact, and at the very least your post does not substantiate that claim (and listing a few key results from field A does not logically prove that those results dominate over other fields B, C, D in terms of impact).
- laughinghan 7y agoI did substantiate my claim, I just had no need to do so with a logical proof. Logical proof is an unnecessarily (in fact, illogically) high bar to demand from a Hacker News comment. All I needed to substantiate my claim was convincing examples of results from field A whose impact, added together, most people would agree is more than the combined impact of field B in the 20th century. The fact that the person I was replying to then agreed with me is strong evidence I succeeded. So is the fact that, of the people who read my comment, 19 more of them upvoted it than downvoted it. Good luck trying to convince people that someone is wrong not by providing convincing examples or reasoning against their conclusion, but merely by pointing out that their reasoning, though convincing, didn't amount to a logical proof. Good luck believing, and acting on, solely information for which you have found a logical proof. (Ironically, I mentioned my minor in undergrad was physics, but my major was pure math, so I used to live and breathe logical proofs, and I still love them. But acting like they're the only kind of argument worth making is pure foolishness.)