Edit - Philosophy Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

19

I will note that philosophy does have some remarkably precise arguments. The problem is that there's so many nuanced positions that there's simply too many precise arguments. In the determinism vs. freewill debates, there's enough precisely defined concepts of freewill out there to give you a headache so strong that you'll seek out a trolley to get hit by!
– Cort Ammon
Commented Jul 15, 2019 at 6:12
3

@loki Perhaps my wording there was imprecise. In that sentence I was referring to not just the tools used in proof theory itself, but their product, which are the tools used everywhere in mathematics for proofs. You can imagine how difficult it would be to start a cryptography proof with "Everyone has an intuitive sense of what prime numbers are, but to date nobody has been able to put forth a succinct definition for them." That's the kind of murkyness which appears in philosophy all the time, and which proofs have a difficult time dealing with.
– Cort Ammon
Commented Jul 15, 2019 at 14:58
1

I have proof. Much nonsense of the twentieth century could have been avoided had nineteenth century philosophers not vastly overstated their confidence level in their results. And the overstated confidence has not changed.
– Joshua
Commented Jul 15, 2019 at 15:12
7

@Joshua Write that up in a formal mathematical proof and we can explore its validity =) In all seriousness, I am certain you've studied the topic more than I have, and your argument is more sound than any I might make. However, I also expect that if you were to put it into a formal mathematical proof in the form the OP is asking about, I'd be able to slaughter it by poking at the myriad assumptions. What you describe is probably an excellent example of why philosophy (or in your case, history) doesn't rely on something akin to mathematical proofs.
– Cort Ammon
Commented Jul 15, 2019 at 15:52
1

You may have a great deal of evidence to back up your assertion, but it will fall far short of what is expected from the standards of a mathematical proof. And that's okay. That's why history, as a discipline, is not reliant on mathematical proofs.
– Cort Ammon
Commented Jul 15, 2019 at 15:52

| Show 9 more comments

Correct minor typos or mistakes
Clarify meaning without changing it
Add related resources or links
Always respect the author’s intent
Don’t use edits to reply to the author

create code fences with backticks ` or tildes ~
```
like so
```
add language identifier to highlight code
```python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
```
put returns between paragraphs
for linebreak add 2 spaces at end
_italic_ or **bold**
quote by placing > at start of line
to make links (use https whenever possible)
<https://example.com>
[example](https://example.com)
<a href="https://example.com">example</a>

formatting help »
answering help »