# Stupid fucks who believe in magic. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 24, 2001, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202 "2001-04-24T22:59:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Amedeus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Amedeus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amedeus)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2001, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/281 "2001-05-03T22:18:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > > What happened to all the _good_ scientists on this board, i.e., the ones who can read and write and do arithmetic and logic? Well, my spelling and grammer might not be the best, But at least **my** logic is intact. > [@](#): > > **Number one:** I am _not_ trying to prove that 5 + 5 = 10. Jab is. He brought it up. no, your right. But you are trying to say that you need some sort of odd logic and detailed mathmatical axiom or whatnot to prove that 5+5=10, and that is such a bunch of wordsmithing and banding about with a philosophical stick its not even funny. take 5 apples and 5 more fucking apples and you have 10, its no more complicated to prove than that, unless you want to bring in some claptrap assersions to do nothing other than confuse. you prove nothing in that course of action other than you are better educated in philosophy, not that you have better logic. > [@](#): > > **Number four:** The point of the argument was that the whole foundation of arithmetic rests on the acceptance of an _unprovable_ assertion, Peanno’s Induction Axiom. Those, like you and I, who believe that 5 + 5 = 10 take that axiom on faith. No, I do not take that on faith. In school we are taught that a single entity is one(we will say apples), take another of apples, and you have two, another and you will have 3, yet another you have 4, ad nauseum. So five of those single apples, and 5 more of those single apples is ten fucking apples. Its called elementry math dipshit. You can resort to some old men back in 5 AD’s philosophical ponderings on the nature of the world or what not, but to say that I take my fucking math on faith because I do not understand his “Inducton Axiom” is you fault in logic. > [@](#): > > **Number five:** Repeatability is not proof of anything. Don’t they teach statistics or number theory in your science classes? We’ve already established that they don’t teach the epistemological foundation of science, so you just accept your premises on faith. Yes, if I get in my car, and start it, and it starts 1000 times in a row, that proves that the mecanism of said car works. It is proof that the car works. Do I take it on faith that that car runs. No. I turn on my light every time I walk in the room, do I have faith that that light bulb will work. No, I know that It will work (as long as it isn’t broken) and if it is broken, I replace it, and I KNOW that it will work. No fucking faith involved. > [@](#): > > **Number seven:** Unlike you, I do not “blindly” believe in _anything_. God manifests Himself to me daily. He goes under the radar of your scientific method because He is real, i.e., made of Spirit and not atoms. He manifests himself daily to you eh? You must be pretty damn special to have god speak to you every day. By god, you must be as important as the Pope himself. _scoff_ Of course if you could prove this to me, I would believe it. > [@](#): > > **Number eight:** The good scientists, i.e., the ones who think and reason — (snip) You mean the ones that Agree with you? ---
**Author:** ![Amedeus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Amedeus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amedeus)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2001, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/282 "2001-05-03T22:20:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > > What happened to all the _good_ scientists on this board, i.e., the ones who can read and write and do arithmetic and logic? Well, my spelling and grammer might not be the best, But at least **my** logic is intact. > [@](#): > > **Number one:** I am _not_ trying to prove that 5 + 5 = 10. Jab is. He brought it up. no, your right. But you are trying to say that you need some sort of odd logic and detailed mathmatical axiom or whatnot to prove that 5+5=10, and that is such a bunch of wordsmithing and banding about with a philosophical stick its not even funny. take 5 apples and 5 more fucking apples and you have 10, its no more complicated to prove than that, unless you want to bring in some claptrap assersions to do nothing other than confuse. you prove nothing in that course of action other than you are better educated in philosophy, not that you have better logic. > [@](#): > > **Number four:** The point of the argument was that the whole foundation of arithmetic rests on the acceptance of an _unprovable_ assertion, Peanno’s Induction Axiom. Those, like you and I, who believe that 5 + 5 = 10 take that axiom on faith. No, I do not take that on faith. In school we are taught that a single entity is one(we will say apples), take another of apples, and you have two, another and you will have 3, yet another you have 4, ad nauseum. So five of those single apples, and 5 more of those single apples is ten fucking apples. Its called elementry math dipshit. You can resort to some old men back in 5 AD’s philosophical ponderings on the nature of the world or what not, but to say that I take my fucking math on faith because I do not understand his “Inducton Axiom” is you fault in logic. > [@](#): > > **Number five:** Repeatability is not proof of anything. Don’t they teach statistics or number theory in your science classes? We’ve already established that they don’t teach the epistemological foundation of science, so you just accept your premises on faith. Yes, if I get in my car, and start it, and it starts 1000 times in a row, that proves that the mecanism of said car works. It is proof that the car works. Do I take it on faith that that car runs. No. I turn on my light every time I walk in the room, do I have faith that that light bulb will work. No, I know that It will work (as long as it isn’t broken) and if it is broken, I replace it, and I KNOW that it will work. No fucking faith involved. > [@](#): > > **Number seven:** Unlike you, I do not “blindly” believe in _anything_. God manifests Himself to me daily. He goes under the radar of your scientific method because He is real, i.e., made of Spirit and not atoms. He manifests himself daily to you eh? You must be pretty damn special to have god speak to you every day. By god, you must be as important as the Pope himself. _scoff_ Of course if you could prove this to me, I would believe it. > [@](#): > > **Number eight:** The good scientists, i.e., the ones who think and reason — (snip) You mean the ones that Agree with you? _I have never claimed to be a Scientist_ I do not see why it takes a scientist to defend the scientific method. Why by that logic, you would need to be a priest to defend the bible. Bah, Go think your smart somewhere else. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2001, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/283 "2001-05-03T22:21:42Z")
> [@](#): > > Mathematics is not religion and you make yourself look incredibly foolish to claim that it is. Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who debates him? :d&r: ---
**Author:** ![Amedeus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Amedeus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amedeus)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2001, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/284 "2001-05-03T22:22:11Z")
Oops, sorry for the double post. Didn’t know that first one got through. Should have previewed. My bad. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2001, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/285 "2001-05-03T22:36:46Z")
**Jodi** , these questions are not properly-phrased. See my corrections: “What is the single most beautiful item in the world **to you**?” Your original was too broad; it was not properly-phrased. Now it is specific and can be answered. “What is the most frightening event or sequence of events a person could possibly experience?” Again, too broad. Which person do you mean? For each person, there is one, and only one, answer. “What is the best recipe for chocolate cake **according to your taste**?” “What is the best way to travel to the outer reaches of the universe?” Improperly-phrased because it implies that there _is_ a way to travel to “the outer reaches” of the universe. How do you know there is a way? > [@](#): > > **When we are dealing with the unprovable – which includes, but is not limited to, the subjective, or quasi-subjective – there is no single right answer.** There is a difference between “unprovable” and “yet to be proven.” > [@](#): > > To say that there is reduces the world to its objective elements alone, as if that were all it is, **which clearly it is not.** Your opinion. Mine is different. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2001, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/286 "2001-05-03T23:39:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **The point of the argument was that the whole foundation of arithmetic rests on the acceptance of an _unprovable_ assertion, Peanno’s Induction Axiom. Those, like you and I, who believe that 5 + 5 = 10 take that axiom on faith.** Three things: 1. I want you to tell us under what circumstances, in the world in which we live, that 5 + 5 does not equal 10. 2. You misspelled “Peano.” (I got no response at Britannica or Yahoo or Google with “Peanno.” You owe me.) 3. What Giuseppe Peano did was develop a system of logic, which is the very antithesis of faith. \*\* > [@](#): > > Repeatability is not proof of anything.\*\* This is quite possibly the dumbest thing you have ever said. That is saying something. Holy fucking shit! The best example of this is the whole cold fusion debacle. No one could duplicate Pons and Fleischmann’s results; this is how cold fusion was disproven. Or how about this: The fact that I use the internet 6 days a week is not proof that the internet works? It is not proof that it’s based on solid principles? Is that what you’re saying, you pseudo-intellectual, mentally-masturbating clown? > [@](#): > > **You think you’re so damn smart because you know about vitamins. Why haven’t you figured out how to feed the world?** You say that as though it’s possible to feed everyone. It may not be possible. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2001, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/287 "2001-05-03T23:48:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Triskadecamus \* > **When I am there, magic doesn’t work. Jab has noticed the same thing. He knows the unprovable, and unscientific is not real. I know the Lord protects me by preventing from magic from happening wherever I am.** The Lord is preventing magic from happening in my presence in order to protect me? Doesn’t He know that by preventing magic from happening in my presence, He strengthens my atheistic, materialistic views? How self-defeating for God. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2001, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/288 "2001-05-04T00:00:44Z")
**Atrael** , I suggest you look up the word _magic_ in the dictionary. Webster’s says: [quote] 1 a: the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b: magic rites or incantations 2 a: an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b: something that seems to cast a spell: ENCHANTMENT 3: the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand When I say I want to see real magic done, I’m referring to “1 a” or “1 b” and not “3”. “2” seems to mean the use of the word as in the phrase “the magic of the movies.” I ain’t talking about that, either. (Please note that I use the word “ain’t” in full knowledge that it is not proper grammar. I use it to emphasize how strongly I feel. So there.) ---
**Author:** ![Crunchy\_Frog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ebca7d/32.png) [@Crunchy\_Frog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crunchy_Frog)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2001, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/289 "2001-05-04T00:10:58Z")
I’m going to use an analogy just to sum up the thread so far - (and for the record, I don’t believe in magic, but I also don’t believe its possible existance should be negated simply because there is no proof as of yet). I claim I have a 2-foot long penis. People don’t believe me. This devolves into a pissing match (no pun intended) about who has the right to believe whose penis is 2 feet long. The above arguments are resolved, since people can believe whatever they want, but scientific proof that I have a 2 foot long penis is still requested. I claim that **jab1** has to prove I _don’t_ have a 2 foot long penis. (Now some people may argue this analogy is different than what happened, but no it isn’t. I made a claim and now I’m being asked to back it up.) I offer to demonstrate my 2 foot long penis to anyone who can make it to St Louis. **Czarcasm** accepts. I quickly rescind the invitation because **Czarcasm** mocks my penis. We argue semantics for a while about how I define “penis.” Jumping ahead: Now people who believe in 2 foot long penises, er, penii, um, what’s plural of penis? Aw, fuck it - People who believe in 2 foot long schlongs now argue that just because I can’t scientifically prove I have an enormous wanker, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Arguments over the semantics of the word “faith” ensue, because some posters just can’t except that my dong is 24 inches on faith. What have I left out? (and please, I know this may not be a perfect analogy, but I’m sure we can all see the point I’m trying to make) So, what’s the point of this post? If you’re going to make a claim, be prepared to back it up. Here, of all message boards we should know this. I have never claimed here that God exists, or that I’ve seen God’s works, or that I’ve felt His presence; I’ve only claimed that I _believe_ I have - that’s what it felt like to me, and another person may see something entirely different. I’m not even sure what’s being argued anymore and I’ve been following this thread since the beginning. Yes, even scientists have faith in some things, but these are things that have been repeated in the past or shown logically to work. This faith is not a blind faith, but one that has been proven to them by past experience. Now there’s a difference between relying on faith and expecting everyday occurances to run smoothly. I expect my car to start because it’s not broke. I don’t see this as having faith in my car. I also don’t have faith in my alarm clock just because it goes off when it’s supposed to. It’s an argument of semantics. Because I buy a clock from the store, I don’t have faith that the thing will work because someone told me it will, I believe it will work because I’ve seen clocks before. I’ve bought clocks in the past and they’ve worked. The process has shown itself to be repeatable and therefore provable. Some of what I’ve seen as descriptions of faith in this thread, while trying to convince the scientific posters that they rely on faith everyday, fall under the category of scientific method to me. If my car starts every day for 3 years, I don’t expect it to start because I have faith in my car, but only because that’s what past experience has taught me. If the car doesn’t start, I haven’t lost faith in it, I the idea that something is broken and take it to a mechanic to test my theory. I don’t have faith in the mechanic, in as much as I have a past experience that mechanics fix shit. Arguments of semantics will get you no where, because although we speak the same language, sometimes the same wrod will mean different things to different people, to hell with what the dictionary says. And as for the mathematical ‘faith’ that goes behind 5+5=10? The names of the numbers are totally arbitrary. Look at the apple analogy above. I don’t need faith to be able to count to 10 and see that 5 apples + 5 apples means I have 10 apples. I can look and see for myself. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2001, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/290 "2001-05-04T01:34:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Oh sure, the world would be a safer place were it controlled by good ol’ rational atheists like North Korean President Kim Il-sung, or his mentors Stalin and Mao. We can all hold hands and sing Kum Baya while all those atheist missions the world over feed the starving children. :rolleyes: \*\* Sarcasm ill becomes you. What are you saying, **Lib** , that all atheists are evil? Prove it. ---
**Author:** ![heembo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f6c823/32.png) [@heembo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heembo)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2001, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/291 "2001-05-04T02:38:24Z")
You guys are kidding, right? You don’t honestly go around all day thinking this stuff is for real, do you? The world is in bigger trouble than I had originally thought. Oh, and to the brilliant mind who assumed incorrectly that I believe everything I was taught in school, you dropped your brain, though I doubt you’d notice since it’s clear you think with your ass anyway… Man, this is incredible. It’s like being at a circus. Freaks to the left of me, freaks to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with you… ---
**Author:** ![Crunchy\_Frog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ebca7d/32.png) [@Crunchy\_Frog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crunchy_Frog)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2001, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/292 "2001-05-04T03:01:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by heembo \* > **You guys are kidding, right? > You don’t honestly go around all day thinking this stuff is for real, do you?** Yes they do, as it is a matter of religious belief. We’ve been through this before already with **jab1**. I believe the issue here is people made the claim that magic is real and then refused to back it up. Can we please avoid casting insults on people for having a religious belief? And in case you decide to claim you aren’t insulting anyone, I’ll agree you haven’t yet, but you sure as hell implied it with your “the world is in worse shape than I thought” remark. \*\* > [@](#): > > Freaks to the left of me, > freaks to the right, > here I am > stuck in the middle with you…\*\* And just because I love this song, I feel compelled to point out the lyrics are: **Clowns** to the left of me **Jokers** to the right Here I am Stuck in the middle with you ---
**Author:** ![heembo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f6c823/32.png) [@heembo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heembo)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2001, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/293 "2001-05-04T04:38:49Z")
Oh, CrunchyFrog, I’m not worried about people feeling as though I have insulted them. In fact, that’s exactly what I am expecting. It’s **my** belief that people who believe in magic/religion are the most dangerous people in the world. Just as they see fit to profess **their** beliefs in this thread, so too do I. I therefore see no problem in expressing my disbelief that this social virus still exists, and will continue to do so as I please. Furthermore…oh wait, the **WB’s** magic hour is on. I have to go watch Buffy, Charmed, and Angel. I’m soooo excited! ::_Hovers, and floats away_:: ---
**Author:** ![Crunchy\_Frog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ebca7d/32.png) [@Crunchy\_Frog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crunchy_Frog)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2001, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/294 "2001-05-04T05:02:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by heembo \* > **Oh, CrunchyFrog, I’m not worried about people feeling as though I have insulted them. In fact, that’s exactly what I am expecting.** So does this mean you’re purposely posting to get a rise out of people? You showed up just to stir up shit? \*\* > [@](#): > > It’s **my** belief that people who believe in magic/religion are the most dangerous people in the world. Just as they see fit to profess **their** beliefs in this thread, so too do I.\*\* It’s **my** belief that you’ve shown yourself to be a grade A arrogant ass with that statement. I posted to you hoping that this thread wouldn’t fall back to what it was in the beginning and that debate and passing of information may occur. With your post to which I initially responded, however, you seem more interested in just letting everyone know you don’t agree with religion (fine) and tossing out a personal attack. You haven’t added to the discussion with that, nor have you enlightened anyone. Do you have anything worthwhile to share, because we can find arrogance anywhere, you know. ---
**Author:** ![heembo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f6c823/32.png) [@heembo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heembo)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2001, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/295 "2001-05-04T05:44:48Z")
So now **I’m** ignorant, Crunchy Frog? I suppose that’s becuase I don’t feel like wasting my time trying to convince people who are never going to agree with me that there is no such thing as magic. And my arrogance is a direct affront to your noble attempts at stamping out ignorance, right? Hello? Anybody home? Wake up, people! ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2001, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/296 "2001-05-04T06:47:33Z")
JAB – > [@](#): > > Jodi, these questions are not properly-phrased. See my corrections: “Not properly phrased”? Sez you. They’re my questions and they ask the precise question I intended to ask, which is not the same as the question(s) asked after your “corrections.” And, since they are my questions, they are not subject to being “corrected” by you in any event. But I love this attitude: There is only one answer to every question, and you are the arbiter of what constitutes a proper question. The convenience of that is both self-evident and (for you) very handy. > [@](#): > > “What is the single most beautiful item in the world to you?” Your original was too broad; it was not properly-phrased. Now it is specific and can be answered. Nonsense. I am not asking what your opinion is; I am asking what is the most beautiful item in the world. If you accept that this is a matter of opinion, variable from person to person, then you must also accept that the question _as phrased_ has lots of correct answers. So let us leave aside the bullshit of you deciding what is “properly-phrased” or not and arrive at the obvious answer that the subjective, by definition, has no “right” or “wrong” answer. The subjective does not lend itself to “right” or “wrong.” Even if the question is limited to me and I tell you that _to me_ the most beautiful sight in the world is the back end of a horse, you are not in the position to say whether that answer is “correct” or not, or even true or not. > [@](#): > > “What is the most frightening event or sequence of events a person could possibly experience?” Again, too broad. Which person do you mean? For each person, there is one, and only one, answer. But for many people, there are many answers. To the same question. All of which are equally correct. My point. You never said “for every question, there is one correct answer, depending on who you ask.” > [@](#): > > “What is the best recipe for chocolate cake according to your taste?” Again, I did not ask this. I asked what the best recipe is, period. This is a question that does not have a single correct answer. And you cannot make that question have a single correct answer by changing it into a question I did not ask. > [@](#): > > There is a difference between “unprovable” and “yet to be proven.” Really??? What a shocker! :rolleyes: The point, which you apparently missed, is taht you cannot tell me what is the “right” answer for _either_ type of question – the unproven _or_ the unprovable. Maybe someday you’ll be able to clear up the former, but _today_ you can furnish a single correct answer to neither. I said: > [@](#): > > To say that there is [a single right answer to every question] reduces the world to its objective elements alone, as if that were all it is, which clearly it is not. To which you reply: > [@](#): > > Your opinion. Mine is different. Color me puzzled. Here you are arguing that something that is objective (whether or not the subjective exists) is in fact subjective (i.e., merely a matter of my opinion). This is, to say the least, a strange point to make while simultaneously declaring that every question has only one correct answer, which can be objectively arrived at. If you are willing to admit (as I think you must) that subjective opinions on matters of taste, beauty, faith, propriety, etc. exist, then you must admit that questions dealing with such subjects almost by definition do not have a single correct answer. At best, they may be said to have many correct answers, depending on who you ask. Kindly do not bullshit me about phrasing: Even if I ask two people “What, in your opinion, is the prettiest color?” and one says “blue” and one says “red,” then I have received two equally valid (equally correct) and totally different answers. I would love to hear how this argument is merely a matter of my opinion; it seems to me to be so self-evident as to not admit serious debate. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2001, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/297 "2001-05-04T07:01:00Z")
I would also point out, as a short follow-up, that it is totally inconsistent to say “every question has but one correct answer, and that answer does not depend at all on whom you ask” (the position undertaken re: 5+5=10) and in the next breath to say “every question has but one correct answer, but that answer depends entirely on whom you ask” (the position undertaken re: the best recipe for cake), since the first statement directly and unavoidably contradicts the second. If every question in fact had but one correct answer, then that correct answer would obviously _not_ be dependent upon whom you asked – it would be, for once and ever, The Correct Answer. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2001, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/298 "2001-05-04T11:15:08Z")
Proof that 5 + 5 = 10: (Adapted from _Foundations of Analysis_, Edmund Landau, Chelsea, 1951, pp. 1-18) Undefined terms: successor (denoted '), addition (denoted +) Definition 1: If x and y are the same number, then x = y Definition 2: If x and y are not the same number, then x != y Definition 3: Let M = the set of natural numbers Definition 4: Let A = 5 Axiom 1: x = x Axiom 2: If x = y then y = x Axiom 3: If x = y and y = z then x = z (Axioms 4 through 8 are adaptations of the Peano axioms) Axiom 4: 1 is a natural number Axiom 5: For every x, x’ is the successor of x Axiom 6: There is no x such that x’ = 1 Axiom 7: If x’ = y’ then x = y Axiom 8: If x belongs to M then x’ belongs to M Theorem 1: If x != y then x’ != y’ (Definition 2, Axiom 5 and Axiom 8) Theorem 2: x’ != x (Definition 1, Axiom 1 and Axiom 5) Theorem 3: If x != 1 then there exists one and only one u such that x = u’ (Definition 2 and Definition 3, Axiom 4, Axiom 5 and Axiom 7) Theorem 4: For every x, x + 1 = x’ (Axioms 5, 6, 7, and 8 and Theorem 3) Theorem 5: For every x and for every y, x + y’ = (x + y)’ (Axioms 1, 2, 3, and 5 and Theorem 4) Theorem 6: A + 1 = A’ (Definition 4 and Axiom 5) Theorem 7: 1’’’’ = 5 (Definition 2 and Axiom 5 and 6) Theorem 8: 1’’’’ + 1’’’’ = 1’’’’’’’’’ (Definition 1 and Axiom 2) Theorem 9: 1’’’’’’’’’ = 10 (Theorem 4) Theorem 10: 5 + 5 = 10 (Axiom 3 and Theorems 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) QED * * * The statement of belief that people who believe in something are dangerous is a self-incriminating statement. * * * Peano was not a 5th century philosopher but a late 19th / early 20th century mathematician and logician who defined the set of natural numbers, such as those numbers used by scientists on their measuring instruments. He published his axioms in _Arithmetices principia, nova methodo exposita_ in 1889. He was the first to prove that if f(x,y) is continuous then the first order differential equation dy/dx = f(x, y) has a solution. He had [so many achievements](http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Peano.html) that listing them here is impractical. “Scientists” who dismiss Peano cast no light on him, but on themselves and their own ignorance. * * * Those who think they can be scientists without a mastery of language and logic are fooling only themselves: > [@](#): > > There is no science without language. This is not merely because scientific judgments must, as a matter of anthropological fact, be communicable, but also because scientific judgments are typically of such an order of complexity that they could not arise without verbal expression. It is therefore incumbent upon us to examine the ways in which the grammatical clothing of a scientific theory relates to the other parts and moments of that complex of structures which is the subject-matter of logic. [Logic and Formal Ontology](http://wings.buffalo.edu/philosophy/faculty/smith/articles/lfo.html) by Barry Smith. * * * People who think they can use logic to validate logic while at the same time others cannot use the Bible to validate the Bible are dangerous for their blinding ignorance and hypocrasy. It ain’t called petitio principii for nothing. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2001, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/299 "2001-05-04T11:43:47Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. What Giuseppe Peano did was develop a system of logic, which is the very antithesis of faith. Well, he used logic to determine what logic can tell us about number theory. That is, he logically deduced the limitations of using logic alone to solve mathematics problems. If you do not accept the Peano axioms (which Lib has kindly supplied above) _on faith_, you cannot deduce that 5+5=10. Luckily, the acceptance of these is universal, giving a common ground for us all to get the same results when we count our apples. However, before we can begin to apply logic to the problem, we have to accept on faith that number theory works. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2001, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202/300 "2001-05-04T13:09:11Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by **waterj2** :_ > However, before we can begin to apply logic to the problem, we have to accept on faith that number theory works. Which is hardly a leap of faith on the scale required to accept psychic abilities, magic spells or Invisible Pink Unicorns. It’s more of a “hop” of faith, I guess… And by the way, **heembo** , **Crunchy Frog** did _not_ call you _ignorant_; he called you _arrogant_. Yes, I know the words looks similar, but they’re different. Here, I’ll explain it for you:[ul][_]Arrogance: The belief that one’s opinions carry more weight than others’ because of one’s innate superiority. Most often exhibited by those individuals with poor powers of self-perception but unusually heightened powers of self delusion.[_]Ignorance: Lack of knowledge or understanding of a particular subject or field of inquiry. Can usually be remedied, unless the person exhibiting ignorance also suffers from _arrogance_ (see above). Example: [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1298222#post1298222)[/ul]Hope that was helpful. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-fucks-who-believe-in-magic/63202.md?page=16)