• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    25 months ago

    Furthermore, I’m not aware of any arguments worth taking seriously that don’t use logic, so I’m wondering why that’s a criticism of the notation.

    If you hear someone shout at a mob “mathematics is witchcraft, therefore, get the pitchforks” I very much recommend taking that argument seriously no matter the logical veracity.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      05 months ago

      Fair, but that still uses logic, it’s just using false premises. Also, more than the argument what I’d be taking seriously is the threat of imminent violence.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        But is it a false premise? It certainly passes Occam’s razor: “They’re witches, they did it” is an eminently simple explanation.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          05 months ago

          By definition, mathematics isn’t witchcraft (most witches I know are pretty bad at math). Also, I think you need to look more deeply into Occam’s razor.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            By definition, all sufficiently advanced mathematics is isomorphic to witchcraft. (*vaguely gestures at numerology as proof*). Also Occam’s razor has never been robust against reductionism: If you are free to reduce “equal explanatory power” to arbitrary small tunnel vision every explanation becomes permissible, and taking, of those, the simplest one probably doesn’t match with the holistic view. Or, differently put: I think you need to look more broadly onto Occam’s razor :)