[mistercheph]

The offer of 'objective reality' as the antithesis to solipsistic mental constructs is exactly the naivety that give both of these impotent families of epistemology any continued sway. Both bad, both wrong, and the crowd swings from one to the other, and at each arrival, anew recognizes the flaws of the mode and turns back.

[mecsred]

Thank god a philosopher has arrived to tell us we're all wrong. Being so wise, you must have the correct answer for us. What's it going to be today "you're not smart enough to understand my genius solution" or "enlightenment can't be taught, only achieved"?

[cubefox]

Yeah. There are some approaches in philosophy of mathematics which try to avoid platonism (the view that mathematical objects have a mind independent existence) but while also retaining classical logic. That's not easily done though. (Currently popular is "structuralism", but this theory has its own problems.)

[mecsred]

I do appreciate you providing some relevant information instead of just telling everyone else they're wrong. You still haven't put any of your own ideas on the line though. Is there an approach you believe is correct, and why?

Here's one of mine so I play by my own rules: philosophical questions don't have any testable hypothesis by nature, they'd be scientific questions if they did. The goal is to massage the question into an answerable one if you can. It's not really possible to have a "wrong" answer if the question is unknowable or malformed.

I could have made the original post with less melodrama but I like to snub philosophers when they swoop in like they have answers to these questions. Either it's a matter of science or you don't have answers, just perspectives.

[cubefox]

> I do appreciate you providing some relevant information instead of just telling everyone else they're wrong. You still haven't put any of your own ideas on the line though. Is there an approach you believe is correct, and why?

I think a form of logicism (the view that mathematical statements are logical tautologies in disguise) is true at least for arithmetic. There are some ways to interpret them using logical truths from pure higher-order logic. I'm not sure about most other parts of mathematics.

> Here's one of mine so I play by my own rules: philosophical questions don't have any testable hypothesis by nature

I think they are testable by performing conceptual analysis, which consists in organizing data from semantic intuitions about the involved concepts.

[mistercheph]

What is testing a hypothesis?

[mecsred]

If you'd like to ponder this question and more, please sign up for a course called "Philosophy of Science". It won't help answer it, but it's easy marks.

[mistercheph]

Sorry, I just figured from all your chest puffing that you had something to say, it appears you don't.

[wpietri]

Beautifully put.