Questions about Occam's razor

[brimstoneSalad]

Seitan is made from wheat. But no particular food is necessary to be vegan: there are a wide range of vegan proteins.

Well, one of those positions has to be easier to defend. From what I can see, it's eating meat.

And you thought it was Flat Earth before. You're short sighted.
Do some actual reading. Pick up Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, for example. He's a fairly well regarded philosopher, and you may learn something.

So do others. And they still win the discussions.

No they don't, not if you stick to consensus.

Like this:

"This is the scientific consensus, here's the proof:
link
link
link
If you disagree with science and think you know better, you are not a reasonable person and there's nothing I can do to persuade you. Good day"

What do you think "winning" a discussion is?

If you refer to expert consensus, you win by default. They have to prove the science wrong, and they can't do that. They can post bullshit all they want in reply, but if a sensible person looks into each side, the winner will be obvious.

So, why don't read from the sacred texts written by an omniscient god? He knows more than scientists do, so…

Are you a Christian now too Teo?
I explained the difference between science and religion already. Multiple times.

If you're a religious dogmatist, and you choose that over science and reason, then there's no argument that will convince you of anything outside of scripture. That makes you by definition closed minded.

Today they are going to analyze my blood to diagnose me.

I think you're a liar. A blood analysis is not an allergy test. Allergies are tested by skin tests.

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003519.htm

I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, despite your admitting to having lied earlier. That benefit is exhausted.

Of course you could have a problem other than an allergy that a blood test could pick up. If you are eating a poor vegan diet, rather than a balanced one which I have you ample resources as a guide to and any idiot can follow, then you could have any number of problems.

Of course it's because of my vegetarianism, it started right when I started to be a vegetarian. I am not THAT delusional.

You are that delusional. Correlation does not mean causation.

[teo123]

Like this:
"This is the scientific consensus, here's the proof:
link
link
link
If you disagree with science and think you know better, you are not a reasonable person and there's nothing I can do to persuade you. Good day"

First of all, my parents don't speak or read English, so showing them what you've told me to show them wouldn't help. And they have no bright idea about what is American Dietary Association, or anything similar. Of course they wouldn't trust it over what they have been told in school. And how do you say "scientific consensus" in Croatian? How do you even say "factory farming" in Croatian? How do you even say "adequate" in Croatian? I don't have such knowledge. Neither do they, when I told them about animals being kept in factories in America, they were shocked, and it is more than likely that it's no different here. Yet alone how do you say "artificial insemination", "battery cages", "debeaking", "antibiotic resistance", "liberation", "sentience", "cognitive dissonance", "rationalization", "anecdotal evidence", or such terms you use here in Croatian. Sorry, but I can't just copy you to win the discussions. If I were to loan each of those words in Croatian and explain what it means, it would take eternity to explain the reasons for veganism and vegetarianism you give. But, of course, Croatian has words for "food chain" and "carnivore" and "masculinity" and "natural" and "protein" and all the similar terms. Of course they sound smarter. Especially since it's almost always them starting the discussions. They are usually short, so that I don't have much time to think of smart responses to their arguments, and I don't want to constantly have to be ready to debate.
Secondly, especially on forums, how do I convince those people that the source I am quoting is reliable? Come on now! As they often point out, there are some "reliable" sources that support weird diets which have caused deaths of many people. The only response I can give is that vegetarian diets are of course different and are followed by millions of people all their lives. But, let's face it, I can't convince them that they are healthier.
Thirdly, refuting my arguments for Flat Earth Theory was way more convincing than emphasizing that it's a scientific consensus that the Earth is round.

What do you think "winning" a discussion is?

Well, when you make the other side think it has no rational arguments and it shuts up.

They can post bullshit all they want in reply, but if a sensible person looks into each side, the winner will be obvious.

And they don't look into each side, especially if there is another person quote-mining the pages I linked to.

I explained the difference between science and religion already. Multiple times.

And, if I can't trust my reasoning, how could I notice them?

I think you're a liar. A blood analysis is not an allergy test. Allergies are tested by skin tests.

I know that. But, if I correctly understood my doctor, they can determine whether I am currently having an allergic reaction or not. In other words, is that itchy rash on my legs an allergic reaction or not. I am not lying, I just haven't told you the whole story. I've also had nose bleeding, which has later turned out to be unrelated. For all we know, it could be insect bites, even though they are unlikely to last for months.

You are that delusional. Correlation does not mean causation.

When I think about it, you are probably right. I am influenced by my father, who is a bit hypochondriac. He told my doctor all kinds of stuff. He constantly sees symptoms of various illnesses, especially mental illnesses, on me. When I, for example, wasn't able to find our bag on a beach, he said I lost the contact with the reality. He is also concerned about me often not being able to understand what he is telling me. He says that my spending time on forums and programming is isolating myself from the reality. And he also says that my arguments for not eating meat are nonsensical and schizoid. Needless to say, he was saying that me believing in conspiracy theories was a symptom of neurosis and paranoia. He constantly reads about medicine on-line, and yet, ironically, he supports alternative medicine and eating meat (though he doesn't really force that upon me). Though, let's face it, some of my behavior was insane. Stating that airplanes don't exist, that the Earth is flat, that there are massive conspiracies covering those things, destroying the braces on my extremely irregular teeth with screw jack (seriously!)… I wouldn't worry about those things, since the psychiatrist prescribed me only some weak tranquilizers, but, yeah, my father does worry about them.

[brimstoneSalad]

What do you think "winning" a discussion is?

Well, when you make the other side think it has no rational arguments and it shuts up.

In a world where everybody was 100% rational, that might work. In reality, it almost never does.

Take an analogy of a chess game. How do you win? Well, you can only even really play if both people are following the rules. If you play by the rules, and the other person is breaking the rules and moving in impossible ways, you can not win. All you can do is call off the game because the other person is cheating.

So, if the people you're arguing with are cheating, you have two options: end the argument, or just cheat right back.

Tell them in Genesis god created man and gave him all of the plants to eat, and so did all of the other animals. This proves man can live on plants alone. Checkmate.

Of course that's a bullshit argument, but it might shut them up.
Yes, later 'god' gave man permission to eat meat, but this was only an option, never a commandment. According to the Bible, the human body is made originally to run on 100% plants.

If they cheat, and you really need an argument to shut them up, that should do it.

First of all, my parents don't speak or read English, so showing them what you've told me to show them wouldn't help. And they have no bright idea about what is American Dietary Association, or anything similar. Of course they wouldn't trust it over what they have been told in school. And how do you say "scientific consensus" in Croatian? How do you even say "factory farming" in Croatian? How do you even say "adequate" in Croatian? I don't have such knowledge. Neither do they, when I told them about animals being kept in factories in America, they were shocked, and it is more than likely that it's no different here. Yet alone how do you say "artificial insemination", "battery cages", "debeaking", "antibiotic resistance", "liberation", "sentience", "cognitive dissonance", "rationalization", "anecdotal evidence", or such terms you use here in Croatian. Sorry, but I can't just copy you to win the discussions.

Maybe your parents aren't playing fair. Maybe they don't even know the rules of the game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought

If that's the case, just don't have the discussion with them. Tell them it's your choice, and just don't eat meat.

If you have any problems, you can ask here and we will help. A lot of people's parents won't let them go vegan, and I can understand.
If they physically force you to eat meat or beat you, then you have no choice.
If they will not buy you B-12, then you should try to get them to buy you some canned oysters, which have a high concentration of B-12. If they won't buy you that, then maybe you can try to convince them with the Bible, or some other argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3j80WpjM0M

Mic. The Vegan's video on B-12 is pretty good.
B-12 is made by bacteria, and it's all around us. Animals don't make B-12, only bacteria.
It's mostly because we live in a sterilized world with sterilized water that we need to eat extra B-12 from other sources (and because we don't eat poop anymore as our ancestors did). This was not as it was in Biblical times or prehistoric times, where B-12 deficiency would be unheard of.

But, of course, Croatian has words for "food chain" and "carnivore" and "masculinity" and "natural" and "protein" and all the similar terms. Of course they sound smarter. Especially since it's almost always them starting the discussions. They are usually short, so that I don't have much time to think of smart responses to their arguments, and I don't want to constantly have to be ready to debate.

Just don't take the bait. Don't respond. Or, write down your response on a card.

Something like "This is what I believe, please respect my beliefs. I will not discuss it."

With a rational person you can have a rational conversation, but they are cheating. Just opt out.
You can't play a chess game with somebody breaking the laws of chess, and you can't have a conversation with somebody breaking the laws of thought/logic.

Secondly, especially on forums, how do I convince those people that the source I am quoting is reliable? Come on now! As they often point out, there are some "reliable" sources that support weird diets which have caused deaths of many people. The only response I can give is that vegetarian diets are of course different and are followed by millions of people all their lives. But, let's face it, I can't convince them that they are healthier.

You're arguing with stupid/irrational people who don't understand what scientific consensus is and don't respect it. They think they know better, or they think that bloggers who make things up are a good source.

You can't argue with these people if they are committed to being irrational and ignorant. Just ignore them.

Thirdly, refuting my arguments for Flat Earth Theory was way more convincing than emphasizing that it's a scientific consensus that the Earth is round.

Scientific consensus should have been enough to be convincing. I know that refutation is better, but you can only do that if you have a very deep knowledge of the subject. I have a very deep knowledge of physics (at least, relative to most people), so I can do it.

You don't have a deep enough knowledge of nutrition and philosophy to refute their arguments. That's OK, you don't need to have a deep knowledge to recognize the value of consensus and respect it. You just need to be honest in recognizing that true experts know more than you do, have evaluated this carefully, and have weighed in saying vegan diets can be healthy and even offer some health benefits.

Some day, if you focus your studies, you will have that knowledge. Then you'll be able to do the same kind of refutations I can. I may be decades older than you are. We barely learn anything in our first ten years of life, you've just gotten started. There's no shame in not knowing these things in depth. The important thing is to trust experts until you have enough knowledge to understand for yourself.

And they don't look into each side, especially if there is another person quote-mining the pages I linked to.

That's because they are not intellectually honest. I know it's frustrating, but you can't do anything about that. People have a choice to be ignorant and irrational.

I explained the difference between science and religion already. Multiple times.

And, if I can't trust my reasoning, how could I notice them?

Read some books about it so you can improve your reasoning. Also, go back and read my posts about it again. If there's something you don't understand, I can explain it to you.

Reasoning is something much easier to teach than the sum of empirical science.

I know that. But, if I correctly understood my doctor, they can determine whether I am currently having an allergic reaction or not.

Yes, but not what you're allergic to. It could be your soap, an insect, etc. It could even be to the lotion of another kid at school that got on your seat before you sit there. It could be almost anything IF it's an allergic reaction. As a localized reaction, it's probably a contact allergy which means it's probably something you're touching regularly with your leg, or an infection of some kind. The test won't say what you're allergic to, if it's allergic.
You need a skin test to determine what is causing the allergy.

If you happen to be allergic to soy, that's fine: it's not hard to be vegan without soy. Many vegans don't eat soy. You can choose other beans instead, there are probably a dozen varieties available where you are.

When I think about it, you are probably right. I am influenced by my father, who is a bit hypochondriac. He told my doctor all kinds of stuff. He constantly sees symptoms of various illnesses, especially mental illnesses, on me. When I, for example, wasn't able to find our bag on a beach, he said I lost the contact with the reality.

I'm sorry about that. He could be worried you'd turn out like your mother, and I can sympathize with that, but if he hounds you about this it could end up being emotionally abusive.
Don't take what he says so seriously, and maybe talk to him about it and ask him to stop.

He is also concerned about me often not being able to understand what he is telling me. He says that my spending time on forums and programming is isolating myself from the reality.

I'm pretty sure you've learned more reality on this forum than anywhere else. Tell him it made you stop believing in conspiracy theories, maybe he will lighten up.

And he also says that my arguments for not eating meat are nonsensical and schizoid. Needless to say, he was saying that me believing in conspiracy theories was a symptom of neurosis and paranoia.

Conspiracy theories are like religion: they're a faith founded belief. It doesn't mean somebody is clinically insane. Although it is a delusional belief, it's rooted in false knowledge not a biological problem.

He constantly reads about medicine on-line, and yet, ironically, he supports alternative medicine and eating meat (though he doesn't really force that upon me).

It sounds like he's being hypocritical. I'm afraid that since he is the parent you can't do much about it. It's good that he doesn't force you, though.
If he won't buy you B-12, that's a bit of a problem, will he buy you canned oysters instead? If not, as I said before, maybe somebody can send you some B-12 then you'd have nothing to worry about.

Though, let's face it, some of my behavior was insane. Stating that airplanes don't exist, that the Earth is flat, that there are massive conspiracies covering those things, destroying the braces on my extremely irregular teeth with screw jack (seriously!)… I wouldn't worry about those things, since the psychiatrist prescribed me only some weak tranquilizers, but, yeah, my father does worry about them.

You're done with that stuff now, though. Somebody who is clinically insane isn't going to be cured of that kind of stuff by rational discussion. You're probably fine.

[teo123]

I am going to stay a vegetarian, this was an overreaction. There is no reason to believe that vegetarian diet causes my skin conditions.

In a world where everybody was 100% rational, that might work. In reality, it almost never does.

Weird. Many atheists and libertarians say that discussions are useful, because it's better to feel embarrassment from loosing a discussion than living a lie.

Maybe they don't even know the rules of the game.

Well, my father has a Phd in philosophy, so he probably knows that. I think that it just gives him false confidence. He is also a historian, so he knows a bit about nutrition from it. For instance, he knows that people who eat less meat are more likely to get tuberculosis (lack of vitamin d), which was discovered by medieval physicians. He also knows that, for example, anaemia was treated with meat in the past. Problem is that, for example, until I told him that, he was unaware that vegetarians are less likely to get heart disease (seriously!). He constantly makes statements such that poor people were more likely to get diseases in the past only because they couldn't afford to eat meat, and dismisses the studies about longevity of vegetarians with that. Look, I can understand him, he has a distorted picture of reality, he only remembers the cases of the weird diets, according to our culture, causing deaths of many people. As for my mother, look, she is simply crazy. She, if that matters, is a professor of Croatian literature.

If they won't buy you that, then maybe you can try to convince them with the Bible, or some other argument.

Well, my father is an atheist. And my mother dismisses all of this about vegetarianism with Jesus not being a vegetarian and vegetarianism being taken from Hinduism to corrupt Christianity.

Something like "This is what I believe, please respect my beliefs. I will not discuss it."

So, to behave like the religious people do?

Read some books about it so you can improve your reasoning.

Well, I have been studying a lot about the Boolean algebra in the context of computer science. And that didn't help, I still believed the Earth was flat. And I've been reading a lot about logical fallacies, and, like I've said, I identified the sun rays appearing to converge because of the perspective as an obvious example of an ad-hoc hypothesis. My father often tells me to think with my own head. If he had been proven wrong so many times, he wouldn't have thought that. You know what they say, smart people are very good at defending stupid ideas.

Don't take what he says so seriously, and maybe talk to him about it and ask him to stop.

Then he just starts yelling at me. I just confirm his judgements by that.

I'm pretty sure you've learned more reality on this forum than anywhere else.

And he says that reality is relationships between the people and that everyone who thinks about reality as the world our senses give us access to is schizoid. He is pretty much anti-science, though not a conspiracy theorist, you know. He calls the nutritional science koo-koo-le-le physics (seriously!). And, as I've said before, he thinks that my interest in computer science and linguistics are isolating myself from the reality.

Tell him it made you stop believing in conspiracy theories, maybe he will lighten up.

I already did, and he says that I hadn't as long as I don't have a lot of friends.

It sounds like he's being hypocritical.

Well, I don't think he is doing it intentionally. When I asked him whether he knows what alternative medicine is, he responded that that's medicine that tries to cure the symptoms and not the cause. When I told him that it's no, that it's the medicine that hasn't been proven to work, he told me that I am stupid and know nothing about it. I think that he is greatly influenced by our culture to see what's a sane behavior. When I, for example, suggested that we give our finch to a cat because it had been bothering me with its singings, he told me I am crazy. And how is what he is doing, eating meat, any different? How is fishing, what many of my peers do, any different? When I told him I broke my braces on my extremely irregular teeth with a screw jacker a few years ago, he told me I am insane. And when my peers drink alcohol and smoke, which is probably about as bad, he calls it socializing.

[brimstoneSalad]

Weird. Many atheists and libertarians say that discussions are useful, because it's better to feel embarrassment from loosing a discussion than living a lie.

Rational discussion with rational people is. It's useless if the other party is closed minded, dogmatic, and not playing by the rules of discourse.

The Bill Nye Ken Ham "debate" is a good example. Many say Bill Nye "lost" by vice of having the debate to begin with.

http://www.godofevolution.com/why-bill-nyes-debate-with-young-earth-creationist-ken-ham-is-probably-a-mistake/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/05/the-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate-was-a-nightmare-for-science.html
http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/02/creationists-have-already-won-tonights-bill-nye-vs-ken-ham-debate/357714/

Obviously Nye was right and Ham was wrong, but Ham doesn't play by the rules, and he just got publicity and credibility by being acknowledged.
He used that publicity to fund his "ark encounter" park.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye%E2%80%93Ken_Ham_debate#Reaction

On February 27, 2014, Ham announced that the publicity the debate generated for AiG had spurred fundraising for its stalled Ark Encounter project, allowing the first phase of construction – a 510-foot (160 m) reconstruction of Noah's Ark estimated to cost $73 million – to begin.[27] Following the announcement, Nye told the Associated Press he hopes the project "goes out of business", adding "If [Ham] builds that ark, it's my strong opinion, it's bad for the commonwealth of Kentucky and bad for scientists based in Kentucky and bad for the U.S. And I'm not joking, bad for the world."[27]

Anyway, the point is that discussion is not always a good idea if the other side is not being intellectually honest. Not everybody is convinced by evidence and sound argument.
Sometimes it's a waste of time at best, or even counterproductive.

Maybe they don't even know the rules of the game.

Well, my father has a Phd in philosophy, so he probably knows that.

That's doubtful. There are "philosophers" who don't even accept logic. Unlike in science, as I said, the academic field rolls in every perspective: legitimate and not. A PhD in philosophy unfortunately doesn't mean much, since the majority of what they study is history of philosophy, not practical philosophy.

Richard Carrier is an idiot (he's all about intersectionalism, third wave feminism, and he's a vicious and horrible person who is himself terrible at philosophy and ignorant of science), but this talk is actually pretty decent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLvWz9GQ3PQ

There he criticises philosophy education as being all about history, and not about practice. It's one of the two times a day his stopped clock is right. Of course on his off time he's a conspiracy theorist and Grade-A nutcase.

If you can figure out how to read this, it will give you a sense of how much of a mess "philosophy" is:

http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Look at the support for deontology. A number of other propositions have absurd levels of support, and there are even apparent contradictions in those results.

Be sure to read this if you aren't familiar with deontology: http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=785

Only a very narrow margin of philosophers are sensible, and that's in the West. The situation of philosophy in your country may be more dire. As you said, he doesn't speak English, which means his knowledge of modern philosophy is probably very limited.

I think that it just gives him false confidence.

I think you're right about that. And it's also probably arrogance of his: since you don't have a PhD, he may be unwilling to listen to your arguments. But that goes against philosophy, where any rational argument should have equal merit. His arguments don't, because they're not rational despite any PhDs he has.

He is also a historian, so he knows a bit about nutrition from it. For instance, he knows that people who eat less meat are more likely to get tuberculosis (lack of vitamin d), which was discovered by medieval physicians. He also knows that, for example, anaemia was treated with meat in the past.

This is an amazing example of academic arrogance from him: he thinks his limited field of study gives him meaningful knowledge of modern medicine and nutrition. It's absurd.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis TB is bacterial, FYI. Vitamin D is synthesized from sun exposure.

Medieval physicians also thought bloodletting was a good idea, and used lead and mercury salts to treat illnesses, just making people sicker.
"Medicine" before science was much more likely to kill people than not, and physicians were just subject to cognitive biases. Only a few surgical practices were actually useful then. It was pretty random whether a treatment would help or kill.

It's like the example of the electrician giving you nutrition advice, or the dietician giving you advice on how to wire your home electricity. A historian knows nothing about nutrition of medicine.

Something like "This is what I believe, please respect my beliefs. I will not discuss it."

So, to behave like the religious people do?

If he's not going to be reasonable, and he's being abusive by yelling at you (he's the parent, so he's in a position of power), then you should say whatever you can to make him leave you alone.

It's not about behaving like religious people, it's about protecting yourself from abuse. This is not a balanced situation between peers. He has some power over you, and as such it's not possible to have a fair discussion with him (added to the fact that he's not being reasonable).

Read some books about it so you can improve your reasoning.

Well, I have been studying a lot about the Boolean algebra in the context of computer science. And that didn't help, I still believed the Earth was flat.

Boolean algebra will help you figure out the shape of the Earth about as much as studying electricity will help you figure out human nutrition: that is, pretty much not at all.
You need to study specifically what you want to learn, and not try to reason it from a position of distant knowledge in some other matter.
Remember, converting from math to reality is the tricky part. You have to be well versed in the empirical knowledge to do it.

Read Richard Dawkins' the god delusion, or Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. Those are decent introductory books on philosophy.

My father often tells me to think with my own head. If he had been proven wrong so many times, he wouldn't have thought that. You know what they say, smart people are very good at defending stupid ideas.

In his mind, he probably thinks he has never been proved wrong: just like Ken Ham. When somebody is not playing by the rules, and cheats in every game, of course that person will think he or she always wins. That will lead that person to believe his or her reasoning is infallible, when in matter of fact it is nothing but dogmatic and irrational.

I used to be proved wrong all of the time. Then I corrected myself. Then I was proved wrong less since I corrected the old wrong ideas. It went on like this for decades until now, when I've corrected something like 99%.
I will still be wrong on occasion, but the way to not be wrong is to correct stupid ideas.
I've learned to follow scientific consensus.

Being bad at defending stupid ideas is what makes you genuinely smart, because you learn and are corrected, and the best way to be bad at defending stupid ideas is to be intellectually honest and humble enough to correct mistakes.

Getting good at defending GOOD ideas means learning to recognize fallacies and bad reasoning in those attacking those ideas. It doesn't mean you prove the good idea right, it's just that you show the criticism to be dishonest and to be breaking the rules of discourse.
It can be challenging to determine if an attack is intellectually honest or not: it will take time to learn. You also have to learn to do your homework: you have to dig into claims and research them. Follow up on things. Many times you'll find people are just lying or citing yellow journalism which is misrepresenting something else with a provocative headline.

Don't take what he says so seriously, and maybe talk to him about it and ask him to stop.

Then he just starts yelling at me. I just confirm his judgements by that.

That's abusive of him. He's a parent, he shouldn't do that.
I suggest you just ask him to respect your beliefs, and to not argue with him.

You can cite the Bible or some other bullshit if you want. He probably knows better than to try to argue with religion. If it shuts him up, at least he will stop emotionally abusing you.

And he says that reality is relationships between the people and that everyone who thinks about reality as the world our senses give us access to is schizoid. He is pretty much anti-science, though not a conspiracy theorist, you know.

So he's a walking contradiction. Being anti-science is being a conspiracy theorist. I see he's basically the worst kind of "philosopher" who denies objective evidence of reality. It's just a much bigger conspiracy -- one the entire universe is in on to trick us.

And, as I've said before, he thinks that my interest in computer science and linguistics are isolating myself from the reality.

That's a shame. Don't listen to him. Your interest in computer science is great, and will help you for your whole life. You'll be able to get a good education and job in something you enjoy.

When I told him that it's no, that it's the medicine that hasn't been proven to work, he told me that I am stupid and know nothing about it.

I'm sorry he's being such a jerk to you.
This is a topic you're right on, and you seem to know your stuff.
Again, if he's not playing by the rules of fair discourse, I'd suggest just letting him be ignorant and not arguing about it with him.

I think that he is greatly influenced by our culture to see what's a sane behavior. When I, for example, suggested that we give our finch to a cat because it had been bothering me with its singings, he told me I am crazy. And how is what he is doing, eating meat, any different? How is fishing, what many of my peers do, any different? When I told him I broke my braces on my extremely irregular teeth with a screw jacker a few years ago, he told me I am insane. And when my peers drink alcohol and smoke, which is probably about as bad, he calls it socializing.

Yes, you can call it some kind of cultural insanity. You're lucky to be more mature than that.

[teo123]

Boolean algebra will help you figure out the shape of the Earth about as much as studying electricity will help you figure out human nutrition: that is, pretty much not at all.

Boolean algebra basically studies reasoning. I meant, I was studying Boolean algebra and I still thought the arguments made by Flat Earthers are valid.

[brimstoneSalad]

Boolean algebra will help you figure out the shape of the Earth about as much as studying electricity will help you figure out human nutrition: that is, pretty much not at all.

Boolean algebra basically studies reasoning. I meant, I was studying Boolean algebra and I still thought the arguments made by Flat Earthers are valid.

It's too abstracted. Math doesn't help people with reasoning much, unfortunately. It would be great if it did.

You need to study formal logic instead.

[teo123]

And it turns out that wasn't an allergic reaction. My blood sample was completely OK.

[brimstoneSalad]

And it turns out that wasn't an allergic reaction. My blood sample was completely OK.

That's good to hear (although not surprising)