There is a DEEP fallacy here, discussed in the work of Thomas Kuhn, Ludwig Wittgenstein and the work of philosopher Larry Wright on formal and informal reasoning, and in the work of Friedrich Hayek on explanation in economics.
Think about how formalization gave Carnap a massively false view of science and knowledge. Think how formalization made math economists believe that socialism was possible, and the an equilibrium construct was an “economy” or somehow provided an explanation (there are many more examples of how formalism made philosophers of science and economists stupid, but those should be enough for an educated person to “get it”.)
Formalize also massively falsified the nature of language, mind, and reasoning for most analytic philosophers over the last 100+ years—a bit of reading of Wittgenstein should help one understand this.
Wright shows the strengths—and limitations—of formalization in argument, and points out at the bottom is something identified in Kuhn and Wittgenstein, i.e. experience, training, good judgment, practice, etc., all stuff NOT formalizable—there is no ‘ultimate’ math or logical metric that can capture everything in a number or in a formalism.
On all this I might in particular recommend Larry Wright, “Argument and Deliberation: A Plea for Understanding”, Journal of Philosophy.
There is a DEEP fallacy here, discussed in the work of Thomas Kuhn, Ludwig Wittgenstein and the work of philosopher Larry Wright on formal and informal reasoning, and in the work of Friedrich Hayek on explanation in economics.
Think about how formalization gave Carnap a massively false view of science and knowledge. Think how formalization made math economists believe that socialism was possible, and the an equilibrium construct was an “economy” or somehow provided an explanation (there are many more examples of how formalism made philosophers of science and economists stupid, but those should be enough for an educated person to “get it”.)
Formalize also massively falsified the nature of language, mind, and reasoning for most analytic philosophers over the last 100+ years—a bit of reading of Wittgenstein should help one understand this.
Wright shows the strengths—and limitations—of formalization in argument, and points out at the bottom is something identified in Kuhn and Wittgenstein, i.e. experience, training, good judgment, practice, etc., all stuff NOT formalizable—there is no ‘ultimate’ math or logical metric that can capture everything in a number or in a formalism.
On all this I might in particular recommend Larry Wright, “Argument and Deliberation: A Plea for Understanding”, Journal of Philosophy.