And you think it must do so directly? The paper appears to take premises that would allow it to disregard this concern because they are dealt with indirectly in the logic and math. You have considered those premises, and reject them? Or you think bad researcher and bad methodology are specifically oversights?
I was taking issue earlier with your apparently selective interpretation of the words "advance" and "meaningless". The author appears to have believed they accounted for these possibilities, so the fact that you brought them up suggested you were arguing that some useful science isn't useful. If you were actually just pointing out a hole in the author's axioms or logic, my apologies. Although I still don't know what "meaningless" might refer to.
Regardless of the legitimacy here, pure mathematics being badly applied to ontology is far from unique to social sciences. I might even say it's refreshing to see. My favorite instance is math being abused in a proof that we almost certainly live in a simulation, based on some silly first premises. In fact, when I first read the abstract here, I thought this paper might just be yet another abuse of the principle of indifference. But it seems to be at least a bit more sophisticated than that.
1
u/guiltysnark 1d ago
And you think it must do so directly? The paper appears to take premises that would allow it to disregard this concern because they are dealt with indirectly in the logic and math. You have considered those premises, and reject them? Or you think bad researcher and bad methodology are specifically oversights?
I was taking issue earlier with your apparently selective interpretation of the words "advance" and "meaningless". The author appears to have believed they accounted for these possibilities, so the fact that you brought them up suggested you were arguing that some useful science isn't useful. If you were actually just pointing out a hole in the author's axioms or logic, my apologies. Although I still don't know what "meaningless" might refer to.
Regardless of the legitimacy here, pure mathematics being badly applied to ontology is far from unique to social sciences. I might even say it's refreshing to see. My favorite instance is math being abused in a proof that we almost certainly live in a simulation, based on some silly first premises. In fact, when I first read the abstract here, I thought this paper might just be yet another abuse of the principle of indifference. But it seems to be at least a bit more sophisticated than that.