Posted by
glen ep ropella on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Wittgenstein-tp1133169p1306345.html
Thus spake John F. Kennison circa 10/07/2008 06:32 PM:
> I see your
> interpretation of Wittgenstein's statements as his way of saying that
> mathematical argument does not do a good or reliable job of
> establishing truth. Am I characterizing your position correctly?
Well, I think W. was arguing against Platonism in mathematics. That's
subtly different from saying that math argument does not do a good or
reliable job of establishing "truth" (i.e. reality)[*]. But, basically,
yes. I think if pressed, W. would agree with your statement. He would
actually go far far beyond your statement and say that math is a
pathological perversion of thought. Indeed, it is a dangerous and
misleading perversion (though it may be effective in highly skilled
hands). The point W was trying to make was that to fixate on math and
elevate it to science is a grave mistake. Doing so will prevent you
from learning how the world really works.
To be clear, my position is different from W's. I think math is related
to reality because we (biological animals) invented math as a way to
help us navigate the world. I think there are both evolutionary and
psychological justifications for the relationship between reality and math.
[*] We have to be careful to distinguish between the validity of a
statement and the soundness of a statement. Validity has to do with
whether or not a statement is mathematically well-formed. If it is (and
if the language is complete), then it is either true or false. But just
because a statement is true doesn't mean it's sound ... i.e. backed up
by data taken from reality.
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org