Math is discovered; clearly, it's not invented because 2 + 2 != 5 and any attempt to make 2 + 2 = 5 would simply devolve renaming 4 under a different name.
Having said that, the counter argument against 'math is discovery' (which is that, if math is discovery, then it must be Platonic, but Platonism is bullshit, so math is not discovery) is that nothing points towards 'math is platonic' more so than other theories, like 'math is a set of ideas that we must inevitably reason towards'(the nomological view)
Note that the 'everyone knows math' argument doesn't support Platonism; anything that is even meaningful is shareable. (yes, even 'internal' emotions)
What makes your statement incoherent is that there *is* enough evidence to support evolution--you simply choose to ignore it. What's wrong with you taking a look at the broader picture is exactly that; it's a broader picture that shifts the epistemic framework to be about metaphysical things instead of keeping the epistemic framework at a scientific/physical level.
Actually, that's what's right, given how the election system is set up. Democracy has never been fashioned from people holding hands and agreeing together--it's from groups opposing each other and then eventually coming to a compromise in some way, including internal compromises that people make.
Slashdot Mirror
Having said that, the counter argument against 'math is discovery' (which is that, if math is discovery, then it must be Platonic, but Platonism is bullshit, so math is not discovery) is that nothing points towards 'math is platonic' more so than other theories, like 'math is a set of ideas that we must inevitably reason towards'(the nomological view)
Note that the 'everyone knows math' argument doesn't support Platonism; anything that is even meaningful is shareable. (yes, even 'internal' emotions)What makes your statement incoherent is that there *is* enough evidence to support evolution--you simply choose to ignore it. What's wrong with you taking a look at the broader picture is exactly that; it's a broader picture that shifts the epistemic framework to be about metaphysical things instead of keeping the epistemic framework at a scientific/physical level.
Actually, that's what's right, given how the election system is set up. Democracy has never been fashioned from people holding hands and agreeing together--it's from groups opposing each other and then eventually coming to a compromise in some way, including internal compromises that people make.