4 ms·
You maybe right, but not the way you interpret math. Mathematical axioms are not empirical, and contradictions do arose from those axioms. Non-Euclidean geometr
by beaunative 6y ago
You maybe right, but not the way you interpret math. Mathematical axioms are not empirical, and contradictions do arose from those axioms. Non-Euclidean geometry[0] would be a good starting point, Russell's paradox[1] is also worth entertaining. Mathematical axioms are assumptions made that works treated as truth, not the truth taken for granted.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox
- sudosysgen 6y agoThat's exactly my point. Mathematical axioms aren't empirically testable, and mathematics accepts many different axioms. Praxeology doesn't accept other axioms, and the axioms it accepts are empirically testable. Which is the why math is fine but Austrian economics isn't. Also, mathematics doesn't make claims on the real world.