Philosophical Vegan Forum

brimstoneSalad wrote:A 125 IQ is not very high

I know. And most physics students don't have a very high IQ. Neither does a high IQ help a lot.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I'm glad you can admit to not understanding something.

You don't need to know the right answer to recognize a wrong one. You don't need to understand advanced aerodynamics to understand why everybody who has studied advanced aerodynamics agrees the explanation usually taught in introductory classes is wrong.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Who is teaching that? The relationship is pretty complicated.

My biology textbook stated that the low-quality carbohydrates in pasta and white bread (most of which is converted to glucose in our mouth by ptyalin) are responsible for the rise of type-2-diabetes. That's a very easy to understand but false hypothesis: type-2-diabetes is a liver disease caused by fructose and saturated fat you eat, not by glucose you eat. Eating fruits, if anything, puts you at higher risk of type-2-diabetes, rather than lower.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Now stop replying in this thread, this is completely off topic.

You were talking something about causality here, and here we see you are using the word "because" in a very odd way. If you say "Airplanes fly because the air above the wing moves faster than the air below the wing.", this is approximately the same as saying "If the air above the wing was moving slower than or about the same speed as the air below the wing, airplanes wouldn't fly.", right? Well, the simple fact that airplanes can fly upside down proves that wrong. If you say "Airplanes fly mostly because the air above the wing moves faster than the air below the wing." (which is what I think you are saying), that means "If the air above the wing was moving significantly slower than the air below the wing (which is what wings do when an airplane is flying upside down), airplanes wouldn't fly.". Yet, airplanes obviously can fly upside down. So, in what sense of the word "because" do airplanes fly because air above the wing moves faster than the air below the wing? Plus, multiple sources (such as this one) say the "equal transit-time fallacy" contradicts the Newton's Third Law, so there is a good reason to think that explanation isn't even coherent (yet alone correct).
The word "cause" is, as far as I know, usually defined using the Thomas Aquinas definition "Cessante causa cessat effectus." (When the cause goes away, so does the effect). You appear to be using that word differently.

By the way, something is wrong with this forum, the posts seem to disappear when I log out.