And don't be so anxious that science will save your argument; science can't even prove two plus two is four.
56 comments
Sure it can.
First, we use math to make a hypothesis. Here the hypothesis is that 2 + 2 = 4. Now you can do an experiment to prove that hypothesis correct.
Take two things and put them on the table in front of you. Any two things. For example, two bibles. [I'm sure you have them.]
Now take two more things and put them on the table in front of you. Any two things. For example, two more bibles. [You know you have them.]
Now, how many things do you have on the table in front of you?
Four.
There you go, that's your proof. We just did an experiment, and got an answer, and that's how science works -- by making hypotheses and working with observable phenomena to prove those hypotheses.
It's much more effective in pretty much every way than trying to find answers in the four bibles you have sitting on the table in front of you.
Moonbiter: I don't agree with your proof. As I see it, 2 + 2 = 4 is an abstract mathematical truth, which holds withih a particular system of axioms about the natural numbers, and is provable from them. Concrete applications of if it can always be open to doubt. For example, if you had put on the table two and two drops of water instead of bibles, they might have joined in a single large drop; if you had put on the table two and two flies, some might have flown away by the time you counted them, and so on. Mathematical truths are not proved by observation, nor do they need to.
(Of course, whatever the quoted fundie meant, I doubt it was what I posted, so I am not defending him/her.)
Right. Logic (specifically the subset called mathematics) proves that two plus two is four, in the common sets of natural, whole, real, and rational numbers, among many others.
Science finds applications for logic. Which you fail at when you make the following statement:
"Come on, Scientific American? You might as well have asked Jesse Jackson to preach fundamentalism. If this is the only place you get your sources, you need to diversify a little. There are tons of scientists out there who still DON'T believe in evolution. Try this site: http://evolution-facts.org/ or answersingenesis.org for a start."
Science has eradicated diseases, enabled humans to fly, put orchestras in our pockets, increased crop yields a thousandfold, created the Internet and that computer you're using, and sent people to the moon and probes to the planets. I'd say its use of 2+2 being equal to 4 is working out pretty darned well so far.
~David D.G.
Um...yeah it can. All you need are four apples. Any first grader knows this, why don't you?
Of course, quantum physics can bring that into question, but on the quantum level, all aspects of reality become suspect...
Well, in theory, science never proof anything. but Science can disproof anything through hypthosis. So, in science we can not proof god, but we can disproof god. the subject of scientology in the aim to proof god is actually bullshit.
"And don't be so anxious that science will save your argument"
It already has. Darwinius massilae & Ardipithecus, coupled with we humans sharing 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees - to say nothing of Kitzmiller vs. Dover proving that by law, 'I.D.' and thus, by definition, Creationism is lies , and Evolution is fact - effectively blows the Creationist argument out of not just the water, but the space-time continuum itself.
"science can't even prove two plus two is four."
And The Bible proves that Pi = exactly 3, amirite?:
image
When not even your 'God' could build a wheel on that mathematical basis, your argument was annihilated the day ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes (287212 BCE) accurately (certainly as near as dammit) calculated Pi.
Math is science, and is a direct product of logic. Of course, to go by the babble's 'math', we'd have to conclude that Pi equals 3, but I guess that's ok.
>>Kinderklein
The bitch is to prove that 1+1=2 (think it took roughly a page in small writing),
but from there on it's a breeze proving 2+2=4 <<
As another poster on the previous page notes, you do have to assume that there exists "0" and some number that follows it, "1". From there you can define the integers.
"science can't even prove two plus two is four."
My calculator can, and it's a scientific calculator! So there!
Math produces real benefits for people. Right now your computer is using mathematics to relay information. Mathematics, therefore, is useful.
Science produces real benefits for people. Science explains how the electricity which powers your computer can be channeled to serve said purpose. Science, therefore, is useful.
Get back to us when you can say the same thing about religion.
Yes, it can. Math is more than capable of proving that. The way math does it, or at least how my college professor explained it, may be a bit difficult to understand, but it can.
science can't even prove two plus two is four
image
Neither can your 'God'.
Because when scientists can add two more to four, what does that say about your 'argument'...?!
Riddle me this: How can I have seven, and add nothing & take nothing away to have eight. Then take one away to have nine ...?!
The annoying part of 2+2=4 is that, since all of them are single-digit, the equivalence of 2+2 and 4 is almost pure notation if we assume all the other typical axioms without trying to prove them. This is equivalent to 5+5=10, where I imagine you'd actually have to define decimal notation to prove it.
Now, proving that (1+1)+(1+1) = ((1+1)+1)+1, that's more interesting. Fairly obvious, if you just want to prove the one instance. In fact, adding dots together to make four is easily proven exhaustively; the associative property of addition is true for all associations of 1+1+1+1, given that:
I visually observe that there are three possible places to insert gaps between four dots in a line ....
.... place no gaps
... . place a gap in the third spot
.. .. place a gap in the second spot
. ... place a gap in the first spot
.. . . place a gap in the third and second spot
. . .. place a gap in the first and second spot
. .. . place a gap in the first and third spot
. . . . place a gap in the first second and third spots
In all cases, simply changing how the dots are grouped does not change the number of dots. This is kind of asinine, but two plus two being equal to four pretty much is the same as ".. .." being the same number of dots as "....".
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.