Announcement

**Sikander** · March 18, 2003, 01:47

Originally posted by Ramo

Of course, you could come up with a mathematical system that isn't based on noncontradiction. It's just that such a system wouldn't be particularly useful.

No you couldn't base a mathematical system on noncontradiction, but if you did it would be useful.

**The Vagabond** · March 18, 2003, 01:47

Originally posted by Asher
Thank you, this is what the argument was about.
Agathon tried (unsuccessfully) to argue the other way through smoke and mirrors.

No, he didn't. I haven't read the whole discussion, but my impression was that he was trying to underscore that the "truth" part is an important aspect of mathematics.

Sure, why not. It describes certain truths in our world. No problem there.

OK then.

**Ramo** · March 18, 2003, 01:51

No you couldn't base a mathematical system on noncontradiction, but if you did it would be useful.

Touche.

**Asher** · March 18, 2003, 01:52

Originally posted by The Vagabond
No, he didn't. I haven't read the whole discussion, but my impression was that he was trying to underscore that the "truth" part is an important aspect of mathematics.

I'm not sure why he was talking about the "truth" part because many times in my posts I've talked about how mathematics was made in response to natural phenmonenon (which are obviously "true").

It started out like this:
Me:

If we're going to discuss how mathematics isn't a man-made construct I may as well discuss why I think my socks were crafted meticulously by aliens.

Him:

I don't think the questions are equivalent. Anyway the fact that you believe dogmatically that mathematics is a human construcy doesn't prove that it is and isn't even a compelling reason to believe so.

And so a lengthy debate ensued where Agathon argued that mathematics wasn't man-made, even though he was apparently confusing mathematics with the natural phenomenon mathematics describes.

**Imran Siddiqui** · March 18, 2003, 02:00

And so a lengthy debate ensued where Agathon argued that mathematics wasn't man-made, even though he was apparently confusing mathematics with the natural phenomenon mathematics describes.

Jeez, why don't you two lovebirds kiss and make-up and just agree that both of your theories are equally valid (though Agathon does argue his better) and let it go.

I'm sensing some real sexual tension here

.

**Asher** · March 18, 2003, 02:02

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Jeez, why don't you two lovebirds kiss and make-up and just agree that both of your theories are equally valid (though Agathon does argue his better) and let it go.

I'm sensing some real sexual tension here

.

Argue his better?? He's not even grounded in reality.

He was arguing about something using the wrong terms completely.

It's certainly not valid, at all, to say that mathematics is not man-made, unless you twist the definition of mathematics. Which is what Agathon has done here.

Maybe that's how you can win debates in philosophy, by changing the meaning of words then scoffing at the OED when confronted with it, but that's not how it works with the real world.

**Imran Siddiqui** · March 18, 2003, 02:06

Yes, he has argued his side better, Asher. Get over it and make up

.

**The Vagabond** · March 18, 2003, 02:08

OK, Asher, I believe we've got some confusion here. Let's clear up a little bit.

Mathematics is a man-made construct. However, as far as the truth part is concerned, mathematics reflects some objective (i.e. man-independent) reality. Throughout the discussion you have been overemphasizing the man-madeness of mathematics to detriment of its objective character. Agathon tried to correct you in this.

**Jaguar** · March 18, 2003, 02:08

There are some things that I can think of as a single thought when they are only describable by multiple words. Examples:

That thing where you and someone else keep trying to pass each other but always end up trying to go around the each other in the same direction, leading to an awkward back and forth movement that looks really silly.

**Asher** · March 18, 2003, 02:08

The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.

Someone want to explain to me how Agathon illustrated how the study of something is not man-made, seeing as it is the product of man's work?

He made a pathetic argument with smoke and mirrors and big words, and you fell for it.

You better get some practice before you enter the courtroom, Imran.

**Asher** · March 18, 2003, 02:11

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Agathon tried to correct you in this.

How can he correct me on something I never disagreed with him about??

I realize the natural phenomenon like having 2 apples and adding 2 apples gives you 4 apples is not man-made, I never said otherwise.

Agathon argued with me when I said mathematics is a man-made construct. Which it is, by definition.

And now we're somehow trying to correct me for something I never disagreed with him about? I'm lost...

**Ramo** · March 18, 2003, 02:15

However, as far as the truth part is concerned, mathematics reflects some objective (i.e. man-independent) reality. Throughout the discussion you have been overemphasizing the man-madeness of mathematics to detriment of its objective character. Agathon tried to correct you in this.

I don't agree with Agathon's assertion that math reflects an objective reality either. I don't believe there's such a thing as objective reality.

**Imran Siddiqui** · March 18, 2003, 02:16

Asher, your inability to see the other side and lack of debating skill will doom you in these debates (I have no idea how you cannot see the POV that math is an objective reality that man simply attempts to explain)

I already have plenty of practice, though I have no doubt you would get utterly ripped apart in a courtroom.

**Asher** · March 18, 2003, 02:19

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Asher, your inability to see the other side

I can see his side, he's arguing about the wrong damn thing since he didn't understand the definition of mathematics.

He was wondering why I kept ignoring that debate and wondered why I called it irrelevant -- duh.

It's a very simple mistake, he mistook mathematics for the phenomenons described by mathematics.

That simple mistake doomed his whole argument from the start, to the point where he tried to launch many side-arguments as distractions.

He didn't prove a point at all, he was arguing about something totally different than what I asserted.

I think you need to pay more close attention to the thread. He made many desperate attempts to distract people and change the route of the debate to save face (ie: The Alberta bull****), I guess you missed that, too.

(I have no idea how you cannot see the POV that math is an objective reality that man simply attempts to explain)

I have no idea why you got that idea in the first place.
Mathematics are the explanations that man gave for the objective reality, I've never said anything to the contrary.

Since mathematics are explanations, they're man-made.

QED...

**The Vagabond** · March 18, 2003, 02:21

Originally posted by Asher
Agathon argued with me when I said mathematics is a man-made construct. Which it is, by definition.

And now we're somehow trying to correct me for something I never disagreed with him about? I'm lost...

If you say that mathematics is just a man-made construct and fail to appropriately mention the truth part (i.e. its objective character), then you are not quite correct in describing the essence of what is mathematics.

OK, in other words, the objective/truth part is absolutely essential.

Announcement

Language and thought

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment