Comment on I just cited myself.
barsoap@lemm.ee 3 months agoFurthermore, 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.
Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 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.
barsoap@lemm.ee 3 months ago
But is it a false premise? I certainly passes Occam’s razor: “They’re witches, they did it” is an eminently simple explanation.
Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 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.
barsoap@lemm.ee 3 months ago
By definition, all sufficiently advanced mathematics is indistinguishable from 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.