Interesting take, but I’m having trouble accepting it, as I don’t think “reality”, “mathematics”, and “theorem” as used here are the common definitions. If you don’t like the results of a theorem, yes, examine the axioms, and yes, identify where you’re misinterpreting the results. But you still have to believe the underlying syllogism “if X and Y, then Z” that the theorem proves. You can only notice that Z is suspicious, so you need to be really sure about X and Y.
I mostly agree with your resistance steps, but recognize that this isn’t resisting the math, it’s resisting humans who are trying to bamboozle you by incorrectly presenting the math.
Interesting take, but I’m having trouble accepting it, as I don’t think “reality”, “mathematics”, and “theorem” as used here are the common definitions. If you don’t like the results of a theorem, yes, examine the axioms, and yes, identify where you’re misinterpreting the results. But you still have to believe the underlying syllogism “if X and Y, then Z” that the theorem proves. You can only notice that Z is suspicious, so you need to be really sure about X and Y.
I mostly agree with your resistance steps, but recognize that this isn’t resisting the math, it’s resisting humans who are trying to bamboozle you by incorrectly presenting the math.