I’ve heard of math-envy for physicists or computer scientists but physics-envy where mathematicians get riled about criminal axiomatizers seems .. less common.

I’ve heard of math-envy for physicists or computer scientists but physics-envy where mathematicians get riled about criminal axiomatizers seems .. less common. I don’t necessarily accept the premise that what’s described as Definition-theorem-proof is a hugely different from observe-model-test, but if I did? Why not both? We only have a few ways to manufacture new high-quality knowledge, and I’m not sure there is a point to arguing about the “main” or best one. And while it might be impossible to “understand” an unmotivated /ungrounded definition, what is really required is to entertain it long enough to see where it leads. Some gardens will bloom and some will not, based on consistency and richness and that’s how you know if the definition is good. One might call that “testing by observation” also, eh?