…and this is a 
We all seem to be in an arithmetical mood today
Category: Godlessness • Humor
Posted on: July 19, 2007 1:00 AM, by PZ Myers
I may have just used the old 2+2=5 analogy, but I also like this example from the Primate Diaries:
Fundamentalists: believe 2+2 =5 because It Is Written. Somewhere. They have a lot of trouble on their tax returns.
"Moderate" believers: live their lives on the basis that 2+2=4. but go regularly to church to be told that 2+2 once made 5, or will one day make 5, or in a very real and spiritual sense should make 5.
"Moderate" atheists: know that 2+2 =4 but think it impolite to say so too loudly as people who think 2+2=5 might be offended.
"Militant" atheists: "Oh for pity's sake. HERE. Two pebbles. Two more pebbles. FOUR pebbles. What is WRONG with you people?"
(props to Stephen Wells.)
Comments
Well, if there are a lot of believers out there with a lot of weapons and a propensity to use them, I guess I'm a moderate atheist then.
Posted by: spudbeach | July 19, 2007 1:06 AM
"They have a lot of trouble on their tax returns."
Hahaha! Good one.
Posted by: SteveC | July 19, 2007 1:07 AM
Agnostics: Oh I don't believe that two plus two equals anything but four. But, I'm not one of those people who swear it's four.
Posted by: Tatarize | July 19, 2007 1:21 AM
Mormon: Two plus two equals SEVEN. I had proof, but an angel took it and flew to heaven.
Posted by: Tatarize | July 19, 2007 1:24 AM
Gould: Two plus two can equal four, but it can also equal five. It really depends on the level of twos you use. We all just have different but non-overlapping values for two.
NOMA: Never Oppose Metaphysical Asininity!
Posted by: Tatarize | July 19, 2007 1:29 AM
"They have a lot of trouble on their tax returns."
Is that a Kent Hovind reference? If so, nice, if not, even better :-)
Posted by: globalizati | July 19, 2007 1:46 AM
Larouche Youth Movement: To properly appreciate what two plus two equals you must first understand that:
Posted by: JP Stormcrow | July 19, 2007 1:56 AM
Maybe OT, but CNN is running a Youtube Debate and is asking for people to send in video questions.
http://www.communitycounts.us/debates/
One can vote for or against questions they deem good or bad.
Notice that there are already two good questions on religion/faith. Current question 2 is about appealing to non-religious voters and number 10 is about reason vs. faith.
Both deserve support.
Posted by: bernarda | July 19, 2007 1:57 AM
We all know 2+2=5 for very large values of 2
Posted by: zwa | July 19, 2007 2:02 AM
The odds of 2+2 equaling precisely 4 out of all the possible numbers it could equal is less probable than a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747.
Posted by: JP Stormcrow | July 19, 2007 2:19 AM
Wouldn't a better analogy be 2.0 + 2.0 = 4?
An engineer loses her wings when you shorten necessary significant digits. Either that or you need to state that you are using the set of all Integers.
Posted by: Math Pedant | July 19, 2007 2:20 AM
Zen Buddhist: We are all one. 2+2 = 1.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 19, 2007 2:20 AM
Trinitarians: 1+1+1=1
Posted by: modulous | July 19, 2007 2:43 AM
Another good reason to use math analogies.
Math deals with absolute truths (one of the very few fields of science where you can use a binary approach to truth) whereas religion is the belief that something unprovable is absolutely true.
Posted by: Who Cares | July 19, 2007 2:47 AM
Fundamentalist: 2+2=4 because God says so.
Moderate Theist: 2+2=4 because God set it up so it would.
Moderate Atheist: 2+2=4 because that's how it works out.
Radical Atheist: Let me introduce you braindead losers to something known as, "number theory".
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | July 19, 2007 3:03 AM
Creationist: I fully understand that 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 + 1 = 3... but no matter how much time you give you can't get to 1000! I fully believe in micromathmatics but macromathmatics is just a religion.
Posted by: Tatarize | July 19, 2007 3:05 AM
LOL!
As an engineer, I'm in the category of 'militant' atheists or 'moderate' atheists, but sometimes, I make a sidestep to category 'moderate' believer. It depends. Isn't there a category for people who don't really care if 2+2 equals four or five?
Posted by: Alcyon | July 19, 2007 3:08 AM
"It depends. Isn't there a category for people who don't really care if 2+2 equals four or five?"
I don't know, maybe, whatever.
Posted by: RamblinDude | July 19, 2007 3:20 AM
PZ, let me be blunt: if you don't grasp the difference between mathematics, to which arithmethics belongs, and sciences such as biology and physics, you shouldn't be teaching one.
The problem here is that rather than doing anything to further your purported goal to have people realize that a wide number of questions are answered far more satisfactorily by science, you're doing the precise opposite: You are fostering the notion that science is "just another religion" merely refusing to admit it put forth by religious fanatics.
Posted by: Oliver | July 19, 2007 3:25 AM
Christian: 2 + 2 = 5, everybody knows Hitler believed that 2 + 2 = 4.
Posted by: Tatarize | July 19, 2007 3:30 AM
Idist:
2+2=5, but there's no way it could get that way without a Very Special Helper that we know nothing about, except that he knows math. And that he's a he. And there's only one of him. And he set 2+2=5. And he wanted us to know. And no one could have figured it out without him. And he's very concerned with our sex lives in addition to math. And the guy who figured this out is the Isaac Newton of Mathemagics.
Hankism:
If you believe 2+2=5, Hank will give you a million dollars when you leave town. If you don't, he'll kick the shit out of you.
Mushball Moderate:
"Wow, you guys who think it's 4 are really serious, but so are these other guys who think it's 5. The only possible answer is 4.5."
Posted by: Samnell | July 19, 2007 3:31 AM
Militant Theist: "I came to know that 2+2=5 by my religion, yet you say you know that 2+2=4 by your "science", therefore your science is just another religion! Ha!"
I only wish I was exaggerating...
Posted by: Shazam McShotgunstein | July 19, 2007 3:38 AM
oh man that made me lol
Posted by: Curtis | July 19, 2007 3:50 AM
That's where the cleverness of introducing pebbles into it comes into play. It turns the exercise into an empirical experiment.
Posted by: SEF | July 19, 2007 3:53 AM
I suspect that no one with a scientific background would accuse Myers or Dawkins of fundamentalism and thus fall afoul of Blake's Law (or corollary or what have you). Only someone whose knowledge of life, the universe and everything is so shallow as to confuse a practical, but unavoidably tentative approach to the world with blind faith could characterize their atheism as dogmatic.
More simply: anyone who invokes "fundamentalist atheism" is ignorant of science, stuck on one side of the divide of C.P. Snow's "Two Cultures."
Posted by: bad Jim | July 19, 2007 3:59 AM
2+2=4, 2x2=4, 2^2=4, 2/2 x 2(2)=4. "Random coincidence" or divine plan?
Posted by: RamblinDude | July 19, 2007 4:01 AM
2 + 1 + ½ + ¼ ... looks like it's going to converge on 4. Maybe you think there's a chance that an odd denominator will show up eventually. Are you feeling lucky?
Posted by: bad Jim | July 19, 2007 4:05 AM
Relativists: 2+2=10 if you're using base 4 or 11 using base 3. 2+2=0 if you're using vectors and the 2s have opposite vectors. More generally, 0
Posted by: Dianne | July 19, 2007 4:20 AM
#24 @SEF
That's where the cleverness of introducing pebbles into it comes into play. It turns the exercise into an empirical experiment.
Um, no. It is still based on the simple definition of numbers. The result isn't "four" because the experiment happened to come out that way, but because the result was defined as being called "four". More, it's written 4 only if you are actually using a base 5 or higher system. The reason that it isn't "five" is plain and simply that four was defined to be the sum of 2+2, or the product of 2x2. If we had called that number "five", then 2+2 would be 5. It's plain and simply arbitrary choice. In fact, what's 5+5? 10? Really? Only if you calculate in the decimal system. Using octal numbers, the result is 12. Why? Because the system is defined in such a way that this is the correct result.
This is the difference between mathematics and other sciences: Mathematics is based on definitions and logical conclusions from those definitions.
Posted by: Oliver | July 19, 2007 4:24 AM
#25 Bad jim
More simply: anyone who invokes "fundamentalist atheism" is ignorant of science, stuck on one side of the divide of C.P. Snow's "Two Cultures."
I would argue that anyone invoking Snow is stuck on one side. I, for one, have no problem talking with someone in literature research despite being a scientist. The problem is usually with scientists having gross misconceptions about the abilities of science which, almost 13 years after the death of Karl Popper, should have been long buried.
Posted by: Oliver | July 19, 2007 4:34 AM
This textbook contains material on 2+2=4. 2+2=4 is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of addition. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
Posted by: soteos | July 19, 2007 4:34 AM
Let me join you in being blunt: this is humour, you moron.
Posted by: MartinM | July 19, 2007 4:39 AM
Thank you MartinM, that I believe is the most polite way I could have put that.
Posted by: Robert | July 19, 2007 5:09 AM
[B]Bog standard, very confused, Is/Ought fallacy lover and moral driveller:[/B]
2+2 must equal 5 because otherwise people would be murdering babies left, right and centre. After all if you cannot admit that, whatever the mundane evidence and facts sa, there is a different level of truth to which absolute morals belong and thus make 2+2=5, then how do you love your wife or manage to stop killing babies. If you think that 2+2=/=5, or even worse 2+2=4, then what stops you from killing babies?
Louis
Posted by: Louis | July 19, 2007 5:19 AM
Pi equals, well something according to a law once proposed.
"Just as people today have a hard time accepting the idea that the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe, Goodwin and Record apparently couldn't handle the fact that pi was not a rational number. "Since the rule in present use [presumably pi equals 3.14159...] fails to work ..., it should be discarded as wholly wanting and misleading in the practical applications," the bill declared. Instead, mathematically inclined Hoosiers could take their pick among the following formulae:
(1) The ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference is 5/4 to 4. In other words, pi equals 16/5 or 3.2
(2) The area of a circle equals the area of a square whose side is 1/4 the circumference of the circle. Working this out algebraically, we see that pi must be equal to 4.
(3) The ratio of the length of a 90 degree arc to the length of a segment connecting the arc's two endpoints is 8 to 7. This gives us pi equal to the square root of 2 x 16/7, or about 3.23."
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_341.html
"Lord knows how all this was supposedly to clarify pi or anything else, but as we shall see, they do things a little differently in Indiana. Bill #246 was initially sent to the Committee on Swamp Lands. The committee deliberated gravely on the question, decided it was not the appropriate body to consider such a measure and turned it over to the Committee on Education. The latter committee gave the bill a "pass" recommendation and sent it on to the full House, which approved it unanimously, 67 to 0.
In the state Senate, the bill was referred to the Committee on Temperance. (One begins to suspect it was silly season in the Indiana legislature at the time.) It passed first reading, but that's as far as it got.
According to The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, the bill "was held up before a second reading due to the intervention of C.A. Waldo, a professor of mathematics [at Purdue] who happened to be passing through." Waldo, describing the experience later, wrote, "A member [of the legislature] then showed the writer [i.e., Waldo] a copy of the bill just passed and asked him if he would like an introduction to the learned doctor, its author. He declined the courtesy with thanks, remarking that he was acquainted with as many crazy people as he cared to know.""
Then there is this lovely commentary by a biblephile,
"Your response to the question about attempts to legislate pi suggests not only that your scholarship is weak but that you are a heathen. When King Solomon constructed the Temple of Jerusalem, the Second Book of Chronicles, chapter 4, verses 2 and 5, tells us:
"Then he made the Sea [a big tub] of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference. It was a handbreadth thick; and its brim was shaped like the brim of a cup..... It contained three thousand baths."
The ratio of 30 cubits for the circumference to 10 cubits for the diameter "from one brim to the other" of the "completely round" circle gives the value of pi as being exactly 3. Perhaps reliance on the Word of God motivated the Indiana legislators you trashed. You should have checked with the ultimate reference."
I can't tell if this guy is being sarcastic or not.
Posted by: bernarda | July 19, 2007 5:35 AM
#32 Martin M
Let me join you in being blunt: this is humour, you moron.
Quite right. It's humourous how people believe that if you compare an apple to an orange, something sensible will come out.
The problem with this "humour" is that it is in line with all the other allegedly non-humorous statements on the blog. And it only works if you accept those statements as true -which I guess you do, but which would also mean that Karl Popper's life passed you without leaving a trace. In which case I wouldn't say that you have anything remotely resembling science on your side.
Posted by: Oliver | July 19, 2007 5:36 AM
Now, what you have all been waiting for is answersingenesis' explanation of biblical verses on Pi. Not for the faint-hearted.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/pi.asp
It is all so obvious.
Posted by: bernarda | July 19, 2007 5:45 AM
A character in a story claimed to be 1/3 Cherokee, fairly confident that nearly no one would twig to the issue (to which her ready explanation that her father was 2/3 Cherokee).
Posted by: bad Jim | July 19, 2007 5:46 AM
Funny. I linked to you on my blog. AbstractConcept.blogspot.com
Posted by: Louis Marlowe - Abstract Concept | July 19, 2007 5:47 AM
Oliver, before playing the sanctimonious know-it-all role, it's a good idea to know what you're fucking talking about.
The reason that it isn't "five" is plain and simply that four was defined to be the sum of 2+2
Completely wrong. In no form of number theory is 2 + 2 = 4 stated as an axiom. It is derivable from more basic axioms based on the properties of the numbers themselves.
In fact, what's 5+5? 10? Really? Only if you calculate in the decimal system. Using octal numbers, the result is 12.
The result is the same in both systems. 10(decimal), 12(octal), ten, dix and zehn are all equivalent ways of representing the same number. How something is written is completely irrelevant to what it is.
Posted by: hyperdeath | July 19, 2007 5:59 AM
Likewise God and Allah.
Omigod, the French pray to Dieu, the Spanish to Dios, the Germans to Gott. Though each claims that there is only one deity, they are clearly worshipping mere idols.
Posted by: bad Jim | July 19, 2007 6:12 AM
Terry Eagleton:
Dawkin's vulgar caricature of Christian mathematics would make a theology student wince. When it comes to theological-algebra, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster.
What, one wonders, are Dawkins's views on the epistemological differences between Smitherton's proof that 2+2=7 and Aldermans theory on the square-root of 2 being 17? Has he read Bentley on Pi being precisely 21, Walton-Smith on the Bessel Function being uniformly zero, or Schmidt on the sine function being its own derivative? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case?
Posted by: hyperdeath | July 19, 2007 6:13 AM
astronomer: 2 + 2 = 4 +/- 10
(or at least it used to be)
Posted by: astromcnaught | July 19, 2007 6:24 AM
String theorist: 2 + 2 = 0 +/- 1063
Posted by: hyperdeath | July 19, 2007 6:32 AM
Oliver: "Quite right. It's humourous how people believe that if you compare an apple to an orange, something sensible will come out.
The problem with this "humour" is that it is in line with all the other allegedly non-humorous statements on the blog. And it only works if you accept those statements as true -which I guess you do, but which would also mean that Karl Popper's life passed you without leaving a trace. In which case I wouldn't say that you have anything remotely resembling science on your side"
OMG! David? David, is that you or somebody else with the same utter lack of a sense of humor and tendancy to take analogies literally? Could David have a Mini Me?
Posted by: Wolfhound | July 19, 2007 6:46 AM
From my high school days, I remember:
Pi = 3, for sufficiently large values of 3.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | July 19, 2007 6:47 AM
What is the value of counting pebbles? Can we really "Know" anything? 2, 2, and 4 are arbitrary symbols imposed by narrow thought on a wondrous universe. I can't even comprehend the limitations implied in "+" and "=". We have no way of knowing whether there are a constrained amount of pebbles that can be bound up in this "thought experiment." Everything is an illusion, possibly (but not likely) the 2 + 2 = 4 materialist paradigm is imposed by an "evil demon." If we only remember that the Universe loves us and wants us to be happy, it doesn't matter how many pebbles you have, or I have. Or whether we count in base 2. Computers have a right to happiness, too.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 19, 2007 6:56 AM
Yer all wrong! 2+2=101
Posted by: Bruno | July 19, 2007 7:00 AM
2+2=4 may be an alternative to 2+2=5, but is it a POSITIVE ALTERNATIVE? How can we possibly get morality or warm fuzzies from 2+2=4? Wouldn't everyone be better served if we believed that 2+2=5 for the betterment of society?
Think of the children!
Posted by: matthew | July 19, 2007 7:02 AM
Still a moron, I see. How's that working out for you?
Posted by: MartinM | July 19, 2007 7:13 AM
Gnostic Christian: 2+2=5 because there's a hidden +1 that is visible only to initiates.
Posted by: Peter McGrath | July 19, 2007 7:17 AM
"Oh for pity's sake. HERE. Two pebbles. Two more pebbles. FOUR pebbles. What is WRONG with you people?"
There's a t-shirt, right? I need that on a t-shirt.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 19, 2007 7:49 AM
How can we expect people unfamiliar with science to get it right when advocates for science can't even do it?
Posted by: Caledonian | July 19, 2007 8:09 AM
Whenever we count, 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 + 1 = 3 et cetera reveals a pattern. This is proof that there is an intelligent designer.
Furthermore, we know that 2 -1 = 1 and 3 - 1 = 1 et cetera, but 1 can't be reduced without removing its function as a positive number. Irreducible numerology shows that Peanoists are wrong in their materialist religion.
Also, since 1 = 1 always we see that the 2LOT of physics is wrong; entropy can't possibly increase. At the same time it is obvious that information can't decrease. This proves that population statisticians are wrong and the numerome that controls cellular algebra is god-... ehrm, design-given and static.
Let me join you in being blunt: this is humour,
The funny thing is that he is so sure that his view is correct. While others may see mathematics as giving models for those number systems that, well, are observed to work best.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | July 19, 2007 8:16 AM
Uups. The quote was:
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | July 19, 2007 8:20 AM
...drops one of the pebbles on the floor and it breaks in two..proudly holds his now 5 pebbles in hand as proof 2+2=5, all thanks to the "Militant" atheist. :)
Posted by: Dave S. | July 19, 2007 8:24 AM
String Theorist: 2 + 2 = 4, but my pebbles can only be detected at Planck energies, so we can't yet verify that. (If we're lucky, however, we might be able to apply arithmetic to quark-gluon plasmas via the AdS/CFT correspondence!)
Greg Chaitin: If you start with the Peano Arithmetic, 2 + 2 = 4 (meaning "successor of successor of zero plus successor of successor of zero equals successor of successor of successor of successor of zero"), but after Gödel and Turing, shouldn't we really take a quasi-empirical view of mathematics, in which we acknowledge that our choice of axioms is at least somewhat dependent upon what we see in the physical world?
John Conway: Up up plus up up equals up up up up! By the way, have you ever really looked at a brick wall before?
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | July 19, 2007 8:33 AM
Damn you, Blake Stacey, for making me laugh.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 19, 2007 8:37 AM
probably a better analogy would be the that the fundies believe that -2 x -2 = -4 because nothing positive can come from negative, while nonbelievers tend to use -2 x -2 = 4. While millenia ago, negative numbers weren't regarded as legitimate, today few would bother trying to construct an arithmatic where -2 x -2 = -4. It's much easier and more internaly consistant to have an arithmatic where -2 x -2 = 4.
Posted by: Jim A. | July 19, 2007 8:53 AM
2+2=5, you bunch of heathens. From the (apocryphal) Book of Inumeratiel, chap. 5:
1 And Inumeratiel went into the valleys to count the flock of his master, Ignorantiath.
2 In the first valley, Inumeratiel did counteth the sheep, and lo, he counted two hundreds of sheep, which he didst count.
3 And lo, verily, in the second valley, he found two hundreds of sheep, which he didst also count in the same manner as the first.
4 And after counting thusly, Inumeratiel returned to the house of his master Ignorantiath and spake to him saying
5 Master, I have counted thy sheep as thou asked. In the first valley thou dost possess two hundreds of sheep, and two hundreds also in the second valley. In sum, thou dost possess five hundreds of sheep.
6 And Ignorantiath was well pleased, and didst gift Inumeratiel with a most comely sheep, that he might know her.
With evidence like this, what more proof could you need?
Posted by: MJ Memphis | July 19, 2007 8:54 AM
Hey, PZ, I think you may enjoy this and its associated links.
Posted by: justawriter | July 19, 2007 8:59 AM
If 2+2=4, then WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS?
Posted by: abeja | July 19, 2007 9:00 AM
"Dirty" atheist:
I know what you're thinking. Does two+ two equal four punk, or does it equal five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
Posted by: Wobert | July 19, 2007 9:02 AM
I definitely have to disagree with Oliver on his interpretation of what 2+2 means.
Really each two is the second successor of 0 (and don't start in on my use of the word second, because I am describing this in English). When you add them together, you have to have as many successors of 0 in the summand as there were in the addends. So there won't be 5 successors of 0 on either side, there will be 4 on both sides.
Here is how I recall I would have written this in number theory: s(s(0)) + s(s(0)) = s(s(s(s(0)))). Any complaints about my use of numbers in the first paragraph should be resolved by looking at the equation.
Playing games with groups and bases does not change the simple mathematical fact at all.
Posted by: Ben | July 19, 2007 9:02 AM
Not a very useful analogy. A mathematical equation is by its nature falsifiable whereas a religious belief by its nature is not. Believers don't normally believe in things that are demontrably untrue (well, maybe creationists) but mostly believe in vague concepts for which there is no convincing evidence, just because someone told them about it when they were young and impressionable. Not really the same thing as believing in a demonstrably false equation.
Posted by: Virginia | July 19, 2007 9:03 AM
This 2+2 stuff doesn't work at relativistic speeds, near the speed of 4.
Posted by: other bill | July 19, 2007 9:04 AM
The "secret" is that if you really want 2+2 to be 5, it will happen.
Posted by: Scotty B | July 19, 2007 9:07 AM
If "2 + 2 = ?" is a question of any real relevance, the answer will turn out to be 42 anyway.
Posted by: forsen | July 19, 2007 9:11 AM
Disprove one of Peano's axioms, then.
Posted by: MartinM | July 19, 2007 9:30 AM
That's incorrect reasoning, MartinM. The equation must be falsifiable in the sense that it could be shown false by certain results, not that it must be falsifiable in the sense that examination produces those results and makes the statement false.
Our observations are overwhelmingly indicative of the validity of Peano's axioms. If they were not, we would reject them.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 19, 2007 9:35 AM
When I was in the first grade, I was paired off with an annoying little twerp who insisted that 2 + 2 = 22. She did all her math facts that way, and when we switched papers to mark them, she "graded" mine according to her little "put the numbers next to each other" method. When I complained to the teacher, the teacher told me that I was going to have to deal with that sort of person my whole life, so I should try to understand. This prepared me, of course, for the sort of tripe I had to deal with from my family and co-workers when I became an atheist.
Posted by: speedwell | July 19, 2007 9:37 AM
Both individual equations and individual religious beliefs only occur with a system of assumptions, and these systems can be judged by their consistency. If the assumptions of a mathematical system demand that both 2+2=4 and 2+2=5, then that system is inconsistent. Likewise, there is a long tradition in theological studies of examining whether the assumptions about supernatural entities produce inconsistencies (such as "If God is all good and created everything, how is there evil in the world?", or "If God is omnipotent, can he limit his actions?"). If one's system of religious assumptions produce inconsistent beliefs, then that's a good reason to reject that system.
Posted by: Tulse | July 19, 2007 9:37 AM
Damnit, forsen beat me to it.
42 is the only answer you need.
Posted by: VWXYNot? | July 19, 2007 9:44 AM
Here's how you do math, Ma & Pa Kettle style:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfq5kju627c
Posted by: Willy | July 19, 2007 9:49 AM
According to my Fundamentalist carpool member, all of this is 'Man's Math.' We can't grasp what He can calculate. If the Bible says 2+2=5, we can only marvel at His wisdom and mathematical skill.
I spell it 'whiz-dumb.'
Posted by: Man of Science | July 19, 2007 9:51 AM
Of course, 2+2=5. The animals went into the Ark "two and two". The Ark was measured in cubits. A cubit is the distance from elbow to fingertip. A hand has five fingers. Could God's revelatory perfection be more obvious than that?
Posted by: Ex-drone | July 19, 2007 9:53 AM
I will now introduce my idea of a mathematical concept that I believe fits a bit more nicely as an analogy. This concept actually does have near-fanatical opponents with close to the level of young earth creationists' abilities of reasoning. Plus, I bet a majority of the US population is against this concept as well (like how the majority claims some kind of belief in God).
1.000... = 0.999... (Note: in base-10)
Also known as, "0.999 repeating equals exactly 1 in the decimal number system".
Hope this thread doesn't get derailed too much by the (very much for real) "1 != 0.999..." folks.
Posted by: Monimonika | July 19, 2007 10:05 AM
Fair point. Peano arithmetic may not be falsifable per se, but the proposition that it can be usefully applied to physical entities certainly is.
Posted by: MartinM | July 19, 2007 10:22 AM
@hyperdeath #40
Oliver, before playing the sanctimonious know-it-all role, it's a good idea to know what you're fucking talking about.
You should heed your own advice first and actually bother to read what others write before you reply to it
Completely wrong. In no form of number theory is 2 + 2 = 4 stated as an axiom. It is derivable from more basic axioms based on the properties of the numbers themselves.
What part of "mathematics is based on definitions and logical conclusions (i.e. derivations) from those definitions did you fail to understand when I wrote it? It is completely irrelevant whether 2+2=4 is stated as an axiom, the numbers are defined in such a fashion that this is the result. That this is define on a more basic level is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fact that it is defined. Which is something completely different than actually concluding it from observation.
@MartinM #50
Still a moron, I see. How's that working out for you?
Talking to yourself? After all, the one who demonstrated a complete and utter lack of the slightest clue of the workings of science is you. But hey, to each his own. I argue on the basis of the theory of science, you on the basis of insults. Guess who looks like a moron? Once you can articulate yourself like an actually educated person instead of like a high-school dropout, come back.
Posted by: Oliver | July 19, 2007 11:13 AM
This reminds me of a mangagement course I heard of that people came away from with the mantra 'because even 2+2 can equal 5 if you believe it enough'.
Posted by: Amy | July 19, 2007 11:14 AM
This made me laugh out loud. The idea that you could name drop Karl Popper - whose philosophy of science is about as far removed from actual scientific practice as it gets - when accusing someone of not understanding science is endlessly entertaining.
Posted by: poke | July 19, 2007 11:25 AM
I haven't actually said anything much about the workings of science.
Maybe true elsewhere, but on this thread, you haven't much in the way of argument on the basis of the theory of science. I haven't offered a single argument on the basis of insults. I've merely insulted you. Since you've presented nothing worth arguing against, but merely ranted on what was otherwise a thread for humour, that seems like a reasonable response.
Still you.
I'm articulating myself like an actually educated person who thinks you're a moron. Don't like it, stop acting like a moron.
Posted by: MartinM | July 19, 2007 11:46 AM
On the security question answering the Asperger's poll for 0 + 8 = I answered 08. They didn't like that, I had to redo my answer, I gave them 8. Shouldn't this have kicked my poll nunber from 21 to 45?
2+2 = 5 is good if you change your language to say that numbers go 1,2,3,5,4,6,7,8,9 etc. It's all about framing.
Ken
Posted by: Ken Mareld | July 19, 2007 12:51 PM
Zen:
2 pebbles + 2 pebbles = a handful to throw at the novice.
Posted by: snoey | July 19, 2007 1:17 PM
What part of "mathematics is based on definitions and logical conclusions (i.e. derivations) from those definitions did you fail to understand when I wrote it?
The part where it was meant to follow as an apt conclusion to the rest of your post.
It is completely irrelevant whether 2+2=4 is stated as an axiom
Then why did you imply it was? What did you mean by "because the result was defined as being called four"?
the numbers are defined in such a fashion that this is the result.
No they aren't. You're trying to redefine addition as some kind of piecemeal operation in which the sum of two numbers is whatever you want it to be. Similarly you're trying to redefine the natural numbers as completely arbitrary symbols that only exist to satisfy the rules of your pseudo-addition.
In both everyday intuition and the foundations of mathematics, the natural numbers are defined without any recourse to addition. Whether you start by considering a number of apples, or use the Peano axioms, the natural numbers are concepts in their own right.
Posted by: hyperdeath | July 19, 2007 2:04 PM
I... I'm blushing :)
My existence is validated! P-Zed Myers quoted me!
Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 19, 2007 2:16 PM
Stuart Pivar:
Draws a series of pictures showing two numeral twos that flop onto their sides, connect end to end, morph into a toroid, and then straighten out into a number five.
Posted by: horrobin | July 19, 2007 2:38 PM
poke:
Hey, poke, what are your thoughts about how useful the philosophy of science is to scientists?
And that question can go out to the rest of your as well.
I want to see if my experiences with scientists and science-minded people diverge or converge with y'all's.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 19, 2007 2:42 PM
It's the eagerness of people like Myers to scoff at, and therefore refuse to learn anything from, the tradition that 2+2=5 that bothers me. Among other things, it cuts them off from much of the world's great literature, art, and music.
Posted by: K. Signal Eingang | July 19, 2007 2:49 PM
Discordianism:
2+2=5. Or maybe 23. Or both.
Rastafarianism:
2+2=...wait, what?
Pastafarianism:
2+2=Fahrrrrrrrrrrr, matey
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 19, 2007 3:31 PM