-
Gregory
4.7kIt is well known in some circles that Whitehead and Russell trained the part of the brain that processes logic to do math. It has its consequences. I don't know what part of my brain I've trained to do math, but it's a puny part (Seinfeld episode comes to mind). In a way though i am one of the greatest mathematicians in the world because I realize how at the most abstract level standard math maps out the impossible. The more math you know the less math you know,in a way. 2+2 equals anything but four. That's my stance.
I was wondering if anyone had a defense of standard mathematics which did not appeal to mathematics itself. Can you avoid a circle while doing it? -
DingoJones
2.8k
How could anyone dare to argue with one of the greatest mathematicians in the world?
Though I am honoured you came down from the mountain to humble us (im sure your very busy with all the genius math you are doing) with your declarations, I simply can not in good conscience go against your almost singular understanding of mathematics, O Calculating One.
“2+2 equals anything but 4”.
Riveting. Bold. Original. Gregory the Great ladies and gentlemen, be humbled in his presence or not at all.
:meh: -
Banno
25.3k
Indeed, the most cogent defence of Dunning-Kruger I have seen today.
When we add this to gems such as:
At work yesterday I set up three jars and looked in the box and it was empty. On the shelf was all six. The universe has done something nice — Gregory
...boom this is deep stuff!
So today's Trophy for Best Fractured Ceramic goes to you, @Gregory.
-
Gregory
4.7kDunning and Kruger are easily refuted. So no smart people know they are smart? Pride can make you dumb, but thinking you are smart can also trigger smart thoughts. Think of Napolean Hill. When ever people say "studies prove" I always know it as a signal to go in the other direction. The intelligentsia suck
-
tim wood
9.3kOne way, not mine, is to define a system - obviously not math or logic because it's newly defined. Make it so it does certain things. What things? Well, the things that math and logic do. See it it makes sense. See if it's isomorphic with actual math and logic, if it is, then done. QED. -
Gregory
4.7kOne mistake that math obviously made was to say pi never repeats. It obviously does repeat otherwise all the whole numbers would not remain staggered even to odd for infinity. Infinity is well ordered in the Aristotelian sense. Anyway, some interpret Godel to have proven that you can't avoid contradictions in math
-
InPitzotl
880there are only three options when providing further proof in response to further questioning: — Münchhausen trilemma (wiki)- The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition is supported only by that proposition
- The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
- The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended
...but I'm not sure I get the point of playing the Münchhausen trilemma as a game. -
Gregory
4.7kA well ordered infinity runs smoothly. If Godel has really proven that the Liar paradox lies at the heart of mathematics, then a disordered infinity underlies math, which.I suspected. A disorder infinite series has no center of gravity to keep it logical. Keeping the logical and illogical balanced actually is truly a game. But I had initially wanted an interesting conversation about math. People who know the danc moves of numbers are being scornful because I turned the music off
-
Banno
25.3kAh, my bad; I wrongly assumed that by "they" you meant Dunning and Kruger, not the clandestine "they" of conspiracy theorists. But I see now that talk of the the Dunning-Kruger effect is a failed attempt by THEM to libel those who have seen through their machinations.
-
Gregory
4.7kBut I see now that talk of the the Dunning-Kruger effect is a failed attempt by THEM to libel those who have seen through their machinations. — Banno
This isn't difficult. They claim they can measure intelligence and assign psychological traits to people who aren't. I am saying they don't really have evidence -
Gregory
4.7kNapoleon Hill had perfectly legit reasons to believe that if people tell themselves they are good at something they become good at it through the use of their subconscious. Dunning and Kruger weren't distinguishes people who are prideful and won't use their intellects and people who use Hill's methods. So I reject their conclusion as unscientific.
-
InPitzotl
880
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.
Categories
- Guest category
- The Lounge
- General Philosophy
- Metaphysics & Epistemology
- Philosophy of Mind
- Ethics
- Political Philosophy
- Philosophy of Art
- Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Language
- Interesting Stuff
- Politics and Current Affairs
- Humanities and Social Sciences
- Science and Technology
- Non-English Discussion
- German Discussion
- Spanish Discussion
- Learning Centre
- Resources
- Books and Papers
- Reading groups
- Questions
- Guest Speakers
- David Pearce
- Massimo Pigliucci
- Debates
- Debate Proposals
- Debate Discussion
- Feedback
- Article submissions
- About TPF
- Help
More Discussions
- In science there is progress and answers. In philosophy there is 2500 years of mental masturbation
- Would a “science-based philosophy” be “better” than the contemporary philosophy?
- The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as a model for online information
- Squirrels and philosophy: 11 degrees of separation
- Dubious Stance: "Philosophy Questions. Religion Preaches. I Choose Philosophy."
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2024 The Philosophy Forum