Using small numbers; I remember my grade 10 math teacher loving that.
The other way is dividing by either side by zero in an algebra equation... but don't get fooled
Last edited:
Is it attacking a person to question their beliefs?
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
Using small numbers; I remember my grade 10 math teacher loving that.
The other way is dividing by either side by zero in an algebra equation... but don't get fooled
Let me see if I can find it, or something like it - the one he did was exhaustive! But maybe there's another one out there...
Lol! This one was a classical fallacy, but still fun:
"Proof" that 1 + 1 = 1
a = 1
b = 1
a = b
a2 = b2
a2 - b2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1
The one I remember my high school math instructor did used square roots.
"Proof" that 1 + 1 = 1
a = 1
b = 1
a = b
a2 = b2
a2 - b2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1
The one I remember my high school math instructor did used square roots.
Last edited:
Yah, I know - which is why it's a fallacy, but as a kid it was fascinating to see my instructor "prove" it (almost fascinating enough for me to learn more about math!). Most of the proofs are fallacies, I think.
But that says something; perspective can change the interpretation.
the problem is that an algebra equation is supposed to be solved to identify the variable(s). You can't say 'a = 1 and b = 1' midway through solving it. It's a fallacy in itself anyway
To clarify the a and b in the equation have to be determined to equal what they equal, I can no more claim them to be 1 then I can claim y =1 in the equation y+1 = 1. That y does not equal 1.
Last edited:
LOL, I disagree with this. "I think, therefore I am" is an opinion.
So basically you believe its possible to think and not exist?
Really. What is your reasoning that your ability to think does not prove you exist to yourself?LOL, I disagree with this. "I think, therefore I am" is an opinion.
'Course there's always this one, which just...hurts. The first line makes my bain go splodey. Warning, it's a .pdf file.
Proof that 1 = 0
Proof that 1 = 0
Way over my head, but starting out by claiming that the 2 equations both of which have variables that are not proven to be the same in reality (x+1 = 2 and x+2 = 2, obviously those x variables are not the same x) kills it. Another bait and switch
Did Descartes try and prove god existed? Something about a mountain and a valley, and then some arguement about humans not being able to get the idea of perfection on their own because they're imperfect, so the idea had to come from somewhere and thus to Descartes he reasoned god into existence. Something like that.
Satya, Yes.
Solar Empath, you prove it to me first!
---------
Ok, ok. I give up already. I have no patience, and I do love a challenge.
Answer this instead: If a person is in a coma, or is severely mentally challenged and is not capable of thought, does this mean they don't exist?
Opinion, see? LOL.
Solar Empath, you prove it to me first!
---------
Ok, ok. I give up already. I have no patience, and I do love a challenge.
Answer this instead: If a person is in a coma, or is severely mentally challenged and is not capable of thought, does this mean they don't exist?
Opinion, see? LOL.
/facepalm
It is:
If you think, then you exist.
not
If you don't think, then you don't exist.
If you assume the second statement because of the first, you've made a fallacy called "denying the antecedent."
Hmmm. I see your point. And I have no problem being wrong. And I also admit to thinking about things unusually.
But my question still makes sense as an answer - to me anyway. A carrot doesn't think (as far as we know), but I don't know how a carrot can be proven to exist, even if, by using that statement, it can be 'proven' that we exist. If the above statement is true, that because we think we exist, than how can we prove anything else exists? I think therefore a carrot exists? I think therefore angels exist? (There are many people who claim to have seen them, which is why I'm using that as an example)
Also, don't we believe we exist because that's the only option we are aware of?
I'm not necessarily saying that I believe we don't exist, but I am saying that the above statement is an opinion, because we just believe we exist because that's been our only way to rationalize our existence.
But my question still makes sense as an answer - to me anyway. A carrot doesn't think (as far as we know), but I don't know how a carrot can be proven to exist, even if, by using that statement, it can be 'proven' that we exist. If the above statement is true, that because we think we exist, than how can we prove anything else exists? I think therefore a carrot exists? I think therefore angels exist? (There are many people who claim to have seen them, which is why I'm using that as an example)
Also, don't we believe we exist because that's the only option we are aware of?
I'm not necessarily saying that I believe we don't exist, but I am saying that the above statement is an opinion, because we just believe we exist because that's been our only way to rationalize our existence.
Last edited:
All it says is this:
Take x. x can be anything in the universe.
For all x (all things in the universe), if x is something that thinks, then that x is also something that exists.
It says nothing about things that don't think. They don't enter into the statement at all.
Now, the profound thing about "I think, therefore I am," is what I just said above, combined with how you would disprove such a statement. In the very attempt to disprove "I think, therefore I am," you must think about the statement, and so you automatically prove the statement correct.
Ok. I thought about it. I still disagree, but I want to understand your point of view better.
So, you are saying:
1. I think therefore I exist.
2. Anything that thinks, exists.
Which to me... would logically translate to:
3. Anything that does not think, does not exist.
And you are also saying.
1. I thought about the sentence, I think therefore I am.
2. Therefore, I must exist, because I thought about it.
But you are not conceding that thinking and existing are two separate things.
And that thinking about something only means that I think I am thinking--not that I am really thinking, and not that I am really existing.
So, you are saying:
1. I think therefore I exist.
2. Anything that thinks, exists.
Which to me... would logically translate to:
3. Anything that does not think, does not exist.
And you are also saying.
1. I thought about the sentence, I think therefore I am.
2. Therefore, I must exist, because I thought about it.
But you are not conceding that thinking and existing are two separate things.
And that thinking about something only means that I think I am thinking--not that I am really thinking, and not that I am really existing.
Last edited:
Thinking and existing are two very separate things, yes. But to think by definition you have to be something. The statement is I think, I am. All it proves is that we are something. We could just be the thoughts in a dream of a bear asleep in an alternate reality, but the fact that we are conscious proves that we are something. If we can question our existence, we are by definition, something. We could be in the matrix, we could be brains floating in a pool of purple jello, we could be anything and everything and what we see as reality could be a lie, but the fact that we can question our existence makes us something.
If you think you're thinking, you are a thinking thing.
The thinking thing (we who question our own existence) are the only provable thing in existence. For all you know, you're alone in existence and thunk us all up. You are right that any thinking thing exists, but the only thing you can be certain is thinking is you.
But that doesn't equate that non-thinking things don't exist. They very well could, but you can't prove that they exist (by this method).