Except that mathematics mostly isn't a "casual model generating precise predictions", especially at the higher levels, famously so with the philosophical failures of Bertrand Russell.
No consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers
Thus the intense drive by neo-liberal economists to mathematize their "science." It's physics envy. A bunch of dorks made massive assumptions about human behavior and motivations because that made it a lot easier to model with mathematics, then spent the next century jacking themselves off until they were left with nothing but a bloody stump.
Too bad their assumptions WERE WRONG and they should be laughed at for being such dorks :farquaad-point:
Love to "make casual models generating precise predictions" for philosophy problems such as the problem of universals
Fuckin dweeb needs to go back to helping determine the answers to such critical conundrums as "does a haybale exist if you remove five pieces of straw from it"
This is just an attack on absolutely everything that isn't a hard-science based in mathematics. Or poo poo pee pee for short.
Except that mathematics mostly isn't a "casual model generating precise predictions", especially at the higher levels, famously so with the philosophical failures of Bertrand Russell.
Gödel tapping the sign
:wojak-nooo: Kronecker and Wittgenstein crying: Noooo! you can't use a diagonalization argument to prove by contradiction.
Cantor, Gödel and Turing: haha, well look at that, the diagonal can't exist. QED
Whoops: Hilbert actually liked Cantor's proof.
Thus the intense drive by neo-liberal economists to mathematize their "science." It's physics envy. A bunch of dorks made massive assumptions about human behavior and motivations because that made it a lot easier to model with mathematics, then spent the next century jacking themselves off until they were left with nothing but a bloody stump.
Too bad their assumptions WERE WRONG and they should be laughed at for being such dorks :farquaad-point:
Basically :gun-hubris:
Just your average STEM douchebag
Here's the twist: This guy isn't a STEM lord, he's an assistant professor for philosophy.
Well that's fucking hilarious
Love to "make casual models generating precise predictions" for philosophy problems such as the problem of universals
Fuckin dweeb needs to go back to helping determine the answers to such critical conundrums as "does a haybale exist if you remove five pieces of straw from it"