Is C.K Raju right about Western Deductive proofs as being inferior

anyone?

“In school our children are being taught two conflicting systems of mathematics. In primary school they learn to calculate in an empirical way: one apple and one apple makes two apples. But later on they they are told that is wrong, and learn some formal mathematics where you postulate some axioms and use the deductive method to arrive at conclusions from the axioms. This makes matters very complicated: Whitehead and Bertrand Russell took 368 pages to deductively prove 1+1=2 in their book. Decolonised mathematics eliminates this needless complexity and accepts the natural and empirical way; it is simple and easy.”

“First of all, I don’t use the term ‘Eurocentric’ because it wrongly suggests that a massive piece of deliberate mischief was an innocent mistake. Second there is nothing wrong with the method of deduction as such, which was used also, for example, in India. Of course, attributing this syllogism to Aristotle is the usual false Western history: there is nil evidence to link the syllogism to Aristotle. What is uniquely Western and wrong are the claims that (a) deduction is infallible, (b) that it is universal (c) that deductive proof is superior to empirical proof, and that (d) it is possible to arrive at valid knowledge without any empirical inputs, as in formal mathematics. All these wrong claims lead to the wrong belief that Western (formal) mathematics is superior and the only right way to do mathematics.”

“Empirical proof is rejected by Western mathematics on the grounds that empirical proof is fallible. Our senses might mislead us. To use a classical example from Indian philosophy: I might mistake a rope for a snake or a snake for a rope. But deductive proof too is fallible: one may easily mistake an invalid deductive proof for a valid one. For example, the very first proposition of “Euclid’s” Elements has an invalid deductive proof. But for 8 centuries that book was mistakenly regarded by all the foremost minds in the West as the model of deductive proof, when, in fact, there isn’t a single valid deductive proof in it, as Bertrand Russell too emphasized. How do you know that his own 368 page proof of 1+1=2 is valid? You just blindly trust authority, and such blind trust can be very fallible. Empirical proofs are never so fallible: one might mistake a rope for a snake, but the Western error about “Euclid’s” Elements, is like mistaking a rope for an elephant.”

>>8438507
Fuck those niggers trying to reinvent the wheel... a shittier, weaker version of it anyway.

>>8438516
but is his criticism right

what makes the deductive method superior to the empirical method?

>Why is this Eurocentric, apart from the fact that a male is used in this example?

What garbage is this?

>>8438518
Could you get imaginary numbers out of an empirical approach?

Everyone just read the article

>>8438530
I did and I wonder to do empirical maths.

>>8438518
The deductive method just werks.

When mathematics gets mixed with empiricism, intuition and what 'looks right' you get the italian school of algebraic geometry

Quote:
By about 1950 it had become too difficult to tell which of the results claimed were correct, and the informal intuitive school of algebraic geometry simply collapsed due to its inadequate foundations.

Google the school and read the entire story of their collapse.

Tbqh this guy tried to be brownberger and failed. My main man wildberger accepts intuition but only to propose the axioms. After that it is pure rigor my man and as he has proved, wildberger's theory in fact leads to the best unified theory of mathematics.

>>8438572
agreed

>>8438485
Basically he is bitching about the philosophical problem of assigning truth to propositions, it has absolutely nothing to do with math at fucking all.

like the the article states deduction is build entirely on axioms.
Imperial proof is only as real as your perception of reality. Deduction still works regardless of reality.

>I could easily give a valid deductive proof that Russell is a racist. I would start with ‘All western philosophers from the 17th to the 20th century were racist. Russell was a 20th century western philosopher. So Russell was a racist
Math makes NO effort to describe any objective mind independent reality. The goal of math is to create a logical framework, not do describe reality.
Now you're dealing with philosophy about assigning truth to propositions. Not math.

However back in reality there is some good use for not using empirical proof as your foundation for your logical reasoning framework, see >>8438572

File: 7743797435.jpg (22KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x360px

>going through PhD thesis
>something doesn't look quite right here, check the author's notes
>the proof of this is empirically obvious, and as such, you should not try to prove it
>ah, that's fine then

and that's how indian mochizuki proved the riemann hypothesis