Aside from Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle (note RK's post), and the philosophical stance of 'we dont even know if we're real' thus meaning we can't prove anything else is, so as to say, even if we believe it to be true, we aren't certain we exist so niether can we be of our beliefs or the events that may/may not have occured so we can't say for sure it's a fact, we need to look at WHERE 1 + 1 = 2 came from. (Puts it aside from the 'it's 2 cause we said so' suggestion people have put forwards do far)
This is what you (or anyone) did; you observed that when you took 1 pencil, and then another pencil, and then had 2 pencils.
Then you used that observation to apply it to every time that happens in the past, presant or future, and to every other object, tangible or otherwise. And that is an assumption, with a demonstration of its basis - the demonstration actually happened, thus is a fact, the premise of 1+1 always being equal to 2 however is an assumption.
It's like saying, I observed that the earth is round, therefore all planets are round, wherever they are in the universe regardless of when they form. Unless you've checked, it's incorrect to make the statement. Now, it just so happens that pretty much all the planets ARE round, or at least round-ish (the Earth is apparently pear shaped), but it doesn't make it any more or any less likely the next planet we discover will be round.
There's a more mathematical side to it as well. As a very low level example, in chemistry, if you stick 1 Sodium atom in with 1 Chlorine atom, you get 1 Salt molecule out the other end. Obviously, it's *very* easy to pick holes in that, but it's an example of something which can be encountered, as RG and RK said already, at much higher levels of maths and more notably physics (where units, dimensions and quantums tend to be more implicative) than it'd have been likely you'd have been introduced to.
---
It would appear perhaps someone has led you to believe that you can handle a group of eg 3 14 year olds in a different manner from all 14 year olds. The implication there was, by '14 year olds' I meant a group of more than 1, eg all. It doesn't matter how many you have, any one still tells you nothing about the others (as you well know), just like in the 'all' case. So what I was saying was 'You can not cover any group of 14 year old humans with the blanket statement of being immature' (unless of course you observe how mature each of is, which is
exactly the same as if you observed every 14 year old's level of maturity, because then you
could blanket them all if it was found that they were all immature, and the group didn't change in any way, as there is a finite number of them). Thus, 'you can not say 14 year olds are immature' is every bit as valid as 'you can not say ALL 14 year olds are immature'.
Saying that 'in general' something is so only ever applies to the cases that have been observed, otherwise, like I stated before, it would be an assumption. It is incorrect to make a general statement which applies to all 14 year olds (ie alot of all the 14 year olds are blah) based on your experience of 14 year olds UNLESS you have examined each and every one of them and discovered a strong majority are eg immature.
"And even if I did say so, so what?" Gee, let me think "I see a bunch of quotes, not "facts"". That makes you wrong at a basic level on that point, surely? If you 'didn't mean that one', you have to SAY that, otherwise you're wrong.
"The only thing that remains to be said here, is that you possess a great "gift" to be able to run from all things you cant meet and are clearly wrong in" Sorry, I thought I gave a justification for being a fact for every "quote" I listed when you challenged them being facts. Give me a list of what I'm running from and I'll quite happy respond to it/again for you.
It might be better to post why your experience of 14 year olds is somehow all knowing and thus applies to Scareyedhawk. If you're right, it doesn't matter what I say, I can't argue back and be correct UNLESS I break the base of your arguement, or find a logical flaw in your derivation from it, right? If the thing someone makes their points from is wrong, then they have to be wrong in some aspect. Easier than saying the conclusion from said thing is wrong.
I'm trying 'DESPERATLY' with all my nice, mossy examples which I will provide on request. I'm awfully sorry if it looks like I'm trying to confuse you with words, it's just, you shouldn't say what you mean, you should mean what you say. That way you don't introduce errors - example "I didnt say "adult" I said "man", as in grown up.. Go read it again.". I've said it before, every human being can be classed as a man; "A human regardless of sex or age; a person". You can use someone being grown up as justification for calling them a man, you can not use not being grown up as justification for not being a man. See the logic table.
Being grown up would explicitly mean Adult, so really what you mean is you do not consider him as an Adult, which would be anything which has attained maturity (from which comes the age stereotype used for law). ie, someone who is grown up. Hence, you have failed to correctly transfer your opinion to words, therefore what you have said
is wrong, regardless of what your opinion was.
I'd say your current arguement basis is your experience of 14 year olds and other young people. This has no relavence to Scareyedhawk, other than to your own opinion of him, which would be less valid than anyone's opinion which was based on relavent information/experience (such as actually *knowing* Scareyedhawk for a length of time). Unfortunately you didn't say things as your opinion, you indicated facts. In addition I'd also say that your numberous linguistic errors has led you down an illogical path to your current conclusions.
*You could change your arguement to something like (presumably your version would involve more swearing?
) the following, which I think is more along the lines of what you REALLY meant from the start, and if so would be correct and entirely acceptable:
Racism is the association of any features with any group specified by race other than they are a member of that race, though treating a race as a group however, is not racism. From what statistics I've seen (though I shan't tell you where these statistics come from or who they apply to), it could be assumed that in general, Men (ie adult males) commit more crimes than Women do, even though this has no relavence to if they break more non legal rules as well. If you're not capable of breaking stupid rules such as you descibe to get ahead in life then I would suggest you are naïve of how the real world works. Even though you say you do alot of mature things, I believe that stating all these things you do (which are mature things to do) is in itself, immature, since it makes it sound like all you want to do is be an adult for the ego boost, which is what an immature person is out to achieve, even though I have little basis for this other than my experience with 14 year olds and other young people. From this experience, I have found that most people do not reach a state of maturity comparable with the stereotypical mature person until around the age of 17, which is when I would assume anyone I met was an adult, in spite of any legal/religious statement of which. You've continued to respond in a manner which makes me think you're trying to inflate your ego, so it just makes me think I'm more and more correct in thinking you're immature, in conjunction with my thinking you're naïve, of course, even though I've never met you and am basing this wholly on my experience which doesn't necesserily apply to you or what you've said at all. In the mean time I'll misinterpret some of what you say as some more evidence to support my opinion, such as you having put things in your profile a long long time ago, and making more unproven statements as to why I'm more mature than you and saying you have a big ego. Then The_GoldFish comes along and points out in a more explicit way than others already have that what I've actually put in this thread so far looks NOTHING like what he's typing for me right now, even though it's probably what I think I've been saying all along, where as instead I've drawn conclusions from experience which doesn't apply to the people in question and called it fact. And call him an idiot for it.
