I'm not angry, I'm exasperated. There’s a difference.
You’ve asked me to provide scientific proof for 1+1=2, and that fire burns the skin. After about 5 minutes of search you will be able to find a few articles on what you’ve requested. I’ve included some below.
Still waiting for your ‘evidence’ that women are so irrational that they aren’t capable of carrying out complex tasks as well as men.
It’s no different to people saying that Indians ‘just are’ worse drivers than Brits. Or Bangladeshis ‘just are’ smelly. Or Jews ‘just are’ evil. Just because it’s a belief you hold, doesn’t mean that it’s true
Strongly held convictions, no matter how commonly held, aren’t always right.
A long time ago it was believed that ‘negroes’ (as they were then called) were too stupid to do anything but pick cotton. Or Indians were too stupid to rule their own country, hence the presence of the British. There are people in Qatar who are convinced that Vietnamese are cannibals and who see all Asian women as prostitutes.
As I said, if you are so utterly convinced that women do not possess the levels of rational thought required to hold higher office then why don’t you argue in a rational manner and provide some proof to back up your claim?
Here’s the proof that 1+1=2:
The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:
P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication (x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.
Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a' using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N (using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.
Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'
2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.
Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2
Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.
And for skin burns, try to read any of the following medical links:
Ahrens M. (2001) The U.S. fire problem overview report: Leading causes and other patterns and trends. Quincy (MA): National Fire Protection Association.
American Burn Associations (2002). Burn Incidence Fact Sheet.
CDC, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). (1998) National vital statistics system. Hyattsville (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, National Center for Health Statistics.
Gibran NS, Heimbach DM. (2000) Current status of burn wound pathophysiology. Clinical Plastic Surgery; 27 (1): 11-22.
Gueugniaud PY, et al. (2000) Current advances in the initial management of major thermal burns. Intensive Care Med; 26 (7): 848-56.
Hall JR. (2001) Burns, toxic gases, and other hazards associated with fires: Deaths and injuries in fire and non-fire situations. Quincy (MA): National Fire Protection Association, Fire Analysis and Research Division.
Hilton G. (2001) Emergency. Thermal burns. AJ7N, American Journal of Nursing. 101(11):32-4.
Istre GR, McCoy MA, Osbom L, Bamard JJ, Bolton A. (2001) Deaths and injuries from house fires. New England Journal of Medicine; 344:1911—16.
Karter MJ. (2005) Fire loss in the United States during 2004. Quincy (MA): National Fire Protection Association, Fire Analysis and Research Division.
National Fire Protection Association (1999) NFPA National Fire Escape Survey, Quincy (MA).
Parker DJ, Sklar DP, Tandberg D, Hauswald M, Zumwalt RE. (1993) Fire fatalities among New Mexico children. Annals of Emergency Medicine; 22(3):5 17—22.
Yowler CJ, Fratianne RB. (2000) Current status of burn resuscitation. Clinical Plastic Surgery; 27 (1): 1-10.
Kaiesj,
I'm not angry, I'm exasperated. There’s a difference.
You’ve asked me to provide scientific proof for 1+1=2, and that fire burns the skin. After about 5 minutes of search you will be able to find a few articles on what you’ve requested. I’ve included some below.
Still waiting for your ‘evidence’ that women are so irrational that they aren’t capable of carrying out complex tasks as well as men.
It’s no different to people saying that Indians ‘just are’ worse drivers than Brits. Or Bangladeshis ‘just are’ smelly. Or Jews ‘just are’ evil. Just because it’s a belief you hold, doesn’t mean that it’s true
Strongly held convictions, no matter how commonly held, aren’t always right.
A long time ago it was believed that ‘negroes’ (as they were then called) were too stupid to do anything but pick cotton. Or Indians were too stupid to rule their own country, hence the presence of the British. There are people in Qatar who are convinced that Vietnamese are cannibals and who see all Asian women as prostitutes.
As I said, if you are so utterly convinced that women do not possess the levels of rational thought required to hold higher office then why don’t you argue in a rational manner and provide some proof to back up your claim?
Here’s the proof that 1+1=2:
The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:
P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication (x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.
Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a' using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N (using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.
Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'
2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.
Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2
Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.
And for skin burns, try to read any of the following medical links:
Ahrens M. (2001) The U.S. fire problem overview report: Leading causes and other patterns and trends. Quincy (MA): National Fire Protection Association.
American Burn Associations (2002). Burn Incidence Fact Sheet.
CDC, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). (1998) National vital statistics system. Hyattsville (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, National Center for Health Statistics.
Gibran NS, Heimbach DM. (2000) Current status of burn wound pathophysiology. Clinical Plastic Surgery; 27 (1): 11-22.
Gueugniaud PY, et al. (2000) Current advances in the initial management of major thermal burns. Intensive Care Med; 26 (7): 848-56.
Hall JR. (2001) Burns, toxic gases, and other hazards associated with fires: Deaths and injuries in fire and non-fire situations. Quincy (MA): National Fire Protection Association, Fire Analysis and Research Division.
Hilton G. (2001) Emergency. Thermal burns. AJ7N, American Journal of Nursing. 101(11):32-4.
Istre GR, McCoy MA, Osbom L, Bamard JJ, Bolton A. (2001) Deaths and injuries from house fires. New England Journal of Medicine; 344:1911—16.
Karter MJ. (2005) Fire loss in the United States during 2004. Quincy (MA): National Fire Protection Association, Fire Analysis and Research Division.
National Fire Protection Association (1999) NFPA National Fire Escape Survey, Quincy (MA).
Parker DJ, Sklar DP, Tandberg D, Hauswald M, Zumwalt RE. (1993) Fire fatalities among New Mexico children. Annals of Emergency Medicine; 22(3):5 17—22.
Yowler CJ, Fratianne RB. (2000) Current status of burn resuscitation. Clinical Plastic Surgery; 27 (1): 1-10.