this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2026
576 points (97.2% liked)

Science Memes

19975 readers
3600 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I see philosophy as a place to make nonrigorous arguments.

Wait do you think Bertrand Russell and Alan Turing and Kurt Gödel weren't making philosophical arguments?

[–] pfried@reddthat.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

They are clearly mathematical. Starting with definitions and axioms and deriving results from there using mathematical statements.

[–] sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip 2 points 13 hours ago

They are clearly mathematical.

Sure. But they're also philosophical. The categories aren't mutually exclusive. Basic set theory (which is both mathematics and philosophy).

[–] lemonwood@lemmy.ml 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

They all debated the question what being mathematical means there whole lives.

[–] pfried@reddthat.com 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

And we determined that the resulting incompleteness proofs are valid mathematical proofs whose logical correctness has been verified by computer. https://formalizedformallogic.github.io/Catalogue/Arithmetic/G___del___s-First-Incompleteness-Theorem/#goedel-1

[–] lemonwood@lemmy.ml 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

They already knew that. You're treading an old worn out logical positivist path, that was inspired by Wittgenstein who worked closely with Russell (both mathematicians and philosophers) and he later saw his error, rejected his positivist followers and explained how truth is not a correspondence to facts, rather meaning is derived from use in language. This applies to all languages, formal and informal, including math and logic.