Re:Humans Aren’t Mentally Ready for an AI-Saturated ‘Post-Tr...
by synetic on Thursday June 22, 2023 @06:06AM
(#36429964)
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.
Re:Humans Aren’t Mentally Ready for an AI-Saturated ‘Post-Tr...
by giardini on Friday June 23, 2023 @12:50AM
(#36442918)
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.
As a child this would have cracked me up (made me laugh very hard). Today it makes me cringe b/c I've heard similar arguments used to cripple the teaching of mathematics in schools.
synetic says "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."
What about statistics: don't you need a Ph.D. in statistics to understand what is a good statistical measure and what is not and how to design trials?
What about logic and science? don't you need a Ph.D. in philosophy and either an M.D. or a Ph.D. in chemistry or biology to understand the logic of the complex systems that you must analyze to develop vaccines?
There's a lot missing here. Another is how people think: very few people distrust all vaccines but an incredibly large group of people distrust certain vaccines. And I believe you've mistaken certification for understanding. Too many things wrong and/or broken; impossible to fix; waste of time.
Sad.