4 ms·

There are no right questions, only right answers. A question, by definition, isn't right or wrong. That's why it's a question, not an answer. The very first st

There are no right questions, only right answers. A question, by definition, isn't right or wrong. That's why it's a question, not an answer. The very first step to being an intelligent person is not being afraid to ask questions. The second step is trying to understand it even if you might reach the wrong result. Only if you passed those first two steps you even have the hope of answering the question correctly. And even a child can prove that 1+1=2, and if you're such an NPC you think it's hard to prove, I honestly find flat earthers more intelligent. Ironically, you're acting like such a bot that you're actually quite good at contradicting my point. You're begging the question (like "why are vaccines effective"). You don't look for understanding but for knowledge to remember then repeat. I always value more the person who tried and failed than the person who never tried. I don't think a layperson can conduct academic research, but I think they can try to understand. And I think that those who tried to understand yet reached the wrong conclusion are still much better than those who never tried.

synetic 3y ago
A child can’t prove 1+1 = 2 because a child doesn’t know enough mathematics to prove it. Doesn’t even understand the basics of mathematical logic or set theory. You know so little about what it means to prove 1+1=2 that you think proving this is easy. Your grasp on the limits of your mathematical knowledge is greatly lacking. There are no right questions, only right answers. A point that does not pertain to what I said. I said nothing about “right” questions. There are dumb questions though. There are insightful questions. There are probing questions. There are nonsensical questions too. Like this question, “If vaccines are good for us then why do we have a bicameral legislative branch?” A person not trained in virology or microbiology is absolutely unqualified to discern the difference between good information and bad information on the topic of vaccines. Such a person can’t possibly do anything that can be reasonably ascribed to “having done the research”. A person who has “done the research” and concludes that vaccines are bad is a fool no matter how many thousands of words or thoughts they devoted to the topic.
- giardini 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - synetic 3y ago
    The widely accepted axiomatic basis for the natural numbers is the first order Peano Axioms. Very few children are capable of understanding how to prove 1+1=2 in this axiomatic system. In this system an axiom says that each element has a successor. 1 is called the successor of 0. 2 is called the successor of 1. So on and so forth. Now we need to define a binary operation called +. Now show that the successor of 0 plus the successor of 0 is the successor of the successor of 0. How many children are capable of this level of abstract thinking? People without training in statistics don’t understand how to properly design trials. I’m a mathematician and I don’t understand this since it is not something I’ve studied. I need to rely on the expert knowledge of others to tell what is and is not a good study design. The large group of people that distrust certain vaccines rather than all of them are ignoramuses.
    - giardini 3y ago
      synetic says "The widely accepted axiomatic basis for the natural numbers is the first order Peano Axioms. Very few children are capable of understanding how to prove 1+1=2 in this axiomatic system." Presumably the "first order Peano Axioms" were noted sometime after Giuseppe Peano's birth in 1858. By your logic no one born before 1858 would be "capable of understanding how to prove 1+1=2", which is nonsense. You seriously underrate everyone except yourself.
- vba616 3y ago
  >A person not trained in virology or microbiology is absolutely unqualified to discern the difference between good information and bad information on the topic of vaccines. It seems hard to argue with that...but what exactly is the meaning of saying people are "absolutely unqualified" to do something which they in fact do constantly and which there is no obvious alternative in order for society to function? If we accept that non-experts are not qualified to determine what is good information, then doesn't it entirely undermine democratic control over society? For that matter, doesn't it entirely undermine the concept of management in industry or government? Individual autonomy and rights too? Again, I'm not saying you are wrong, or that I have a counterargument, just that the logical implications seem extremely radical, and I don't know of a plan for how society can function on such a basis.

synetic 3y ago

A child can’t prove 1+1 = 2 because a child doesn’t know enough mathematics to prove it. Doesn’t even understand the basics of mathematical logic or set theory. You know so little about what it means to prove 1+1=2 that you think proving this is easy. Your grasp on the limits of your mathematical knowledge is greatly lacking. There are no right questions, only right answers. A point that does not pertain to what I said. I said nothing about “right” questions. There are dumb questions though. There are insightful questions. There are probing questions. There are nonsensical questions too. Like this question, “If vaccines are good for us then why do we have a bicameral legislative branch?” A person not trained in virology or microbiology is absolutely unqualified to discern the difference between good information and bad information on the topic of vaccines. Such a person can’t possibly do anything that can be reasonably ascribed to “having done the research”. A person who has “done the research” and concludes that vaccines are bad is a fool no matter how many thousands of words or thoughts they devoted to the topic.

giardini 3y ago
[flagged]
- synetic 3y ago
  The widely accepted axiomatic basis for the natural numbers is the first order Peano Axioms. Very few children are capable of understanding how to prove 1+1=2 in this axiomatic system. In this system an axiom says that each element has a successor. 1 is called the successor of 0. 2 is called the successor of 1. So on and so forth. Now we need to define a binary operation called +. Now show that the successor of 0 plus the successor of 0 is the successor of the successor of 0. How many children are capable of this level of abstract thinking? People without training in statistics don’t understand how to properly design trials. I’m a mathematician and I don’t understand this since it is not something I’ve studied. I need to rely on the expert knowledge of others to tell what is and is not a good study design. The large group of people that distrust certain vaccines rather than all of them are ignoramuses.
  - giardini 3y ago
    synetic says "The widely accepted axiomatic basis for the natural numbers is the first order Peano Axioms. Very few children are capable of understanding how to prove 1+1=2 in this axiomatic system." Presumably the "first order Peano Axioms" were noted sometime after Giuseppe Peano's birth in 1858. By your logic no one born before 1858 would be "capable of understanding how to prove 1+1=2", which is nonsense. You seriously underrate everyone except yourself.
vba616 3y ago
>A person not trained in virology or microbiology is absolutely unqualified to discern the difference between good information and bad information on the topic of vaccines. It seems hard to argue with that...but what exactly is the meaning of saying people are "absolutely unqualified" to do something which they in fact do constantly and which there is no obvious alternative in order for society to function? If we accept that non-experts are not qualified to determine what is good information, then doesn't it entirely undermine democratic control over society? For that matter, doesn't it entirely undermine the concept of management in industry or government? Individual autonomy and rights too? Again, I'm not saying you are wrong, or that I have a counterargument, just that the logical implications seem extremely radical, and I don't know of a plan for how society can function on such a basis.