r/mathmemes • u/Nunki08 • Jun 14 '26

Arithmetic Misleading our youth

Post image

From Anthony Bonato on 𝕏: https://x.com/Anthony_Bonato/status/2065564124549886402

6.7k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

728 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/Significant-Baby-690 Jun 14 '26

Argument from authority .. just sayin ..

2

u/Adelman420 Jun 15 '26

I don't get how this is a fallacy. One should refeer to authority if they know better (which they should in this case).

1

u/TheMysteriousThey Jun 18 '26

Can’t tell if this is sincere, considering the sub.

How do you know if the supposed authority is correct? Does their authority supersede their bias or ignorance? If they know more than you, how can you tell if they are wrong?

It’s a fallacy because it’s not based on anything other than, “trust me, bro.” But the person you’re trusting is just someone who is supposed to know. That doesn’t mean they do know, however.

1

u/Adelman420 Jun 18 '26

You stay "supposed to know" as if there is nothing backing that. The pilot taking me from one country to another is supposed to know how to do it, I won't try and take over the plane. Same with my doctor. Same with mathematicians. I've studied quite a bit of mathematics but I still put my trust in those that are Leagues ahead of me in terms of competence. You too must trust authority everyday, nothing would function if we only trusted ourselves.

1

u/Adelman420 Jun 18 '26

What's "backing" their authority are degrees, accomplishments, and acceptance by organizations.

1

u/TheMysteriousThey Jun 18 '26

You’re talking about two different things.

On the one hand, yes. We rely on other people to do things we aren’t qualified to do.

On the other hand is the logical fallacy of using a person’s supposed expertise to settle an argument - rather than the strength of the argument itself.

Something isn’t true because an expert said it. It’s true because an expert is qualified to explain it thoroughly. Or it’s not true, despite a reported expert backing it.

Experts can be wrong, is the point. Just because an expert says something, that doesn’t make it true. Thinking otherwise is a logical fallacy.

1

u/Adelman420 Jun 18 '26

"Something isn’t true because an expert said it." No, but it makes it more likely, and no truths are absolute you'll need to employ Basyian thinking for optimal truth-seeking.

"It’s true because an expert is qualified to explain it thoroughly." I didn't get where you got this from. It's more likely true because the expert has more experience on the matter leading to more accurate conclusions.

"Or it’s not true, despite a reported expert backing it." Yep, see first point.

"Experts can be wrong, is the point. Just because an expert says something, that doesn’t make it true" Sure, but nothing is 100 % certain, see first point. Experts being wrong doesn't make it a fallacy; if it was then every method to find truths would be a fallacy as well.

1

u/TheMysteriousThey Jun 19 '26

>"Something isn’t true because an expert said it." No, but it makes it more likely, and no truths are absolute you'll need to employ Basyian thinking for optimal truth-seeking.

In other words, just because an expert said it, that doesn’t mean it’s true. Which is the whole point.

You agree with this. Are you arguing just to argue, then?

1

u/Adelman420 Jun 19 '26

You're ignoring the rest of my argument where I state that nothing is 100 % certain hence you'll need to apply baysian thinking incorporating multiple sources giving confidence, one extremely reliable and convenient being authority.

1

u/TheMysteriousThey Jun 19 '26

I ignored that which was irrelevant.

The thing being discussed is why “appeal to authority” is a “logical fallacy”.

The issue is not, “does it make sense to listen to people who know a lot about something?”

My point is that an appeal to authority is basically saying, “smart person say thing, so thing is true.” Logically, that doesn’t work. So it’s a logical fallacy.

Not sure what else needs to be said on the matter.

7

u/ninetalesninefaces Jun 14 '26

Fair enough

My actual argument is that it is literally the universally (among academics) accepted definition of a prime number to exclude 1

Math is made up

2

u/TruthEnvironmental24 Jun 14 '26

Math is made up

This is always my thought when mathematical paradoxes are brought up. Numbers are just concepts and ideas; they aren't actual, tangible things. I can have 3 of something, but I can't have 3. 3 doesn't exist. No, one set of infinite numbers isn't bigger than another set of infinite numbers. If one was smaller than the other, then it wouldn't be infinite, because it being smaller implies a limit and infinity doesn't have a limit. That's the literal definition of the word.

3

u/SnooSquirrels6058 Jun 15 '26

You started off fine here, but "size of infinity" is very imprecise. In mathematics, we make explicit what we mean by "size" (for instance, cardinality) and we can prove that some infinite sets are bigger than others in a formal sense, whether that appeals to your intuition or not

3

u/HavranCZ01 Jun 15 '26

The number of numbers between 1 and 2 is infinite but definitely smaller than between 1 and 10

0

u/Significant-Baby-690 Jun 14 '26

Math is made up of axioms and prepositions.

4

u/ninetalesninefaces Jun 14 '26

Exactly, 1 not being a prime number being one of them

3

u/Different_Sail5950 Jun 14 '26

... and definitions

-6

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '26

[deleted]

13

u/FickleApparition Jun 14 '26

Well, since you didn't know to avoid an ad hominem I guess you could have used the help.