4 ms·
> No, "both sidesing" is not at all how philosophers or mathematicians train to establish the truth In math, proof by counterexample is pretty directly what yo
by gameman144 3y ago
> No, "both sidesing" is not at all how philosophers or mathematicians train to establish the truth
In math, proof by counterexample is pretty directly what you'd call "both-sidesing" above; you make a thorough, detailed, and compelling argument for a case against your hypothesis, then demonstrate why it can't be true.
If you can't do the work of the making such a detailed counterexample, then the proof of your actual hypothesis falls apart too.
Being able to make the strongest argument against your beliefs is necessary for you to hold your own beliefs most strongly.
- sudosysgen 3y agoThat's not a proof by counter-example, that's a proof by reduction to absurdity, and you don't need to make a case for what you're disproving, you just need to show it leads to something false. Whatever argument anyone has towards it being true is pointless and doesn't need to be mentioned. A proof by counter-example can get even more terse, you simply have to construct an object which breaks a hypothesis. You don't need to consider the incorrect arguments either. Sometimes these proofs are only a sentence long.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]