Difference between revisions of "Fallacies Of Philosophy"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
=== Assuming that small cases will scale up. === | === Assuming that small cases will scale up. === | ||
Engineers know that any time you scale up something, you can reach a point where it no longer works. Something that works between a pair of people might not work for a trio, for example. | Engineers know that any time you scale up something, you can reach a point where it no longer works. Something that works between a pair of people might not work for a trio, for example. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Claiming that math is an example of objective truth === | ||
| + | I frequently see thing such as "2+2=4 is true whether or not you or I believe it. It's objectively true." | ||
| + | |||
| + | "2+2=4 is true whether or not you or I believe it. It's objectively true." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Wow, that is horseshit. 2+2=4 is one statement out of an infinitude which also includes 2+2=1. Neither statement is "true" in most senses of truth (please tell me which one you mean!) Both are abstract models that may or may not correspond to real world examples. For example, 2 water drops plus 2 water drops could equal one big water drop. And I highly recommend [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2004/2004-h/2004-h.htm Pigs is Pigs] for a famous example of 1+1=thousands. In math, 2 infinities (aleph null) plus two infinities still equals one infinity. So mathematicians have counterexamples for your "objective truth". But there is also another facet of math you probably don't know. Math involves selection of statements based on their "beauty" (ie. desires of mathematicians.) Mathematicians usually prefer 2+2=4 because they find arithmetic beautiful: it is far more often superior for modelling than 2+2=1 usually is. In the development of calculus, philosophers complained greatly about infinitesimals and other concepts, but mathematicians found it beautiful anyway. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Nor are humans capable of objectivity or recognizing an objective truth. The best we have is intersubjective corroboration. | ||
=== Presuming that clear and sharp categories can be used as a starting point. === | === Presuming that clear and sharp categories can be used as a starting point. === | ||
