This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
I have tagged this article with {{pov}} because this article blatantly breaks the policy of neutral point of view: while postmodernism has been strongly disputed by many philosopher and most mathematicians, the single fact that this philosophical theory has been contested is totally lacking in the article.
Also the way of presenting works of Popper and Wilkinson is totally wrong (for the other "figures", I do not know their work sufficiently for having an opinion): Wilkinson's fuzzy logic is perfectly integrated in the main stream of mathematics; on the other hand the supposed Aristotelian Law of Truth is never used or cited in mathematics and mathematical logic (as shown by the red link, WP does not have an article for it). Popper's falsifiability principle does not means that the truth of a mathematical result (or a physical law) is relative, as said by the article; it means that, if the result or the law are not true under some conditions, this can be proved. This means that, for Popper, mathematics is a science, but postmodern mathematics is not, because it is not falsifiable. It is humorous to see Popper presented as a figure of postmodern mathematics. D.Lazard (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it is true that the fuzzy logic does not has the law of excluded middle of among its axioms. But it remains wrong to say that people who have developed the fuzzy logy never stated, as suggested by the article, that the usual logic is wrong, nor that they have a concept of trueness of a theorem that differs from the usual one. Also, Wilkinson seems to be James H. Wilkinson, the only mathematician or logician with this last name, who has a WP page. He is certainly not the one who has introduced fuzzy logic, as the page Fuzzy logic says "Fuzzy logic had however been studied since the 1920s, as infinite-valued logic—notably by Łukasiewicz and Tarski". This page does not mention any Wilkinson. D.Lazard (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of opposing viewpoints. That should be fleshed out in the article. The article ought to elucidate all sides. It would then address the problem off "neutrality." 7&6=thirteen (☎)14:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, whichever the subject is, it is not mathematics. So, even the title of the article is somehow an intellectual fraud, as suggesting that is is mathematics, when it is clearly not. D.Lazard (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If only there were a lead paragraph that, even though not very good, made it clear that it is a kind of philosophy of mathematics! There are philosophies of mathematics that are not held by (many, or any) mathematicians, and that's ... completely ok; there is no sense being in such a huff about it. (By contrast, XOR'easter is approaching this in a much more sensible way in the deletion discussion: as any other Wikipedia article, to be evaluated on those terms.) --JBL (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
