• Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    This is just an attack on absolutely everything that isn’t a hard-science based in mathematics. Or poo poo pee pee for short.

        • SacredExcrement [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Well that’s fucking hilarious

          Love to “make casual models generating precise predictions” for philosophy problems such as the problem of universals

          Fuckin dweeb needs to go back to helping determine the answers to such critical conundrums as “does a haybale exist if you remove five pieces of straw from it”

    • MemesAreTheory [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Thus the intense drive by neo-liberal economists to mathematize their “science.” It’s physics envy. A bunch of dorks made massive assumptions about human behavior and motivations because that made it a lot easier to model with mathematics, then spent the next century jacking themselves off until they were left with nothing but a bloody stump.

      Too bad their assumptions WERE WRONG and they should be laughed at for being such dorks :farquaad-point:

    • TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Except that mathematics mostly isn’t a “casual model generating precise predictions”, especially at the higher levels, famously so with the philosophical failures of Bertrand Russell.

      • zifnab25 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Gödel tapping the sign

        No consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers

        • asustamepanteon [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          :wojak-nooo: Kronecker and Wittgenstein crying: Noooo! you can’t use a diagonalization argument to prove by contradiction.

          Cantor, Gödel and Turing: haha, well look at that, the diagonal can’t exist. QED

          Whoops: Hilbert actually liked Cantor’s proof.