I heard this broadcast (available with transcript at the top of the page) a while ago, and really like the way Cheng breaks down an argument. I really liked the following bit:

I heard this broadcast (available with transcript at the top of the page) a while ago, and really like the way Cheng breaks down an argument.

I really liked the following bit:

AMT: When people are passionate about something or upset, they seem less rational, less logical. How do emotions and logic intersect?

EC: I think it's important to remember the emotions and logic are not in dichotomy with each other. They are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes people and I must say it's often men, accuse women of just being emotional and not being logical. And I think that women sometimes feel emotions so strongly that they worry that they're not being logical, but I think that emotions and logic work together. I know that I am extremely logical. I'm a professional research mathematician. I also know that I'm extremely emotional and I have emotional responses to things very quickly and very strongly. And that doesn't mean I'm not also being logical and the thing is that I can use logic to unpack where my emotions are coming from. So for example, if I'm completely terrified of something, then I can work through that to see where that terror is coming from and if someone has really upset me, then I'll be very upset, but that I can gradually work back through it to see why I'm so upset about it. At the same time, I can use emotions to help understand other people's logic because I can try and understand where they are coming from, rather than imposing my own logic on them all the time. And so empathy kind of helps me access their logic, which then helps me empathize with them even more.

The article implies that logic and math are the same. They’re not. It is true there’s no math without logic, but there certainly is logic without math. I made a somewhat similar point yesterday.

The article implies that logic and math are the same. They’re not. It is true there’s no math without logic, but there certainly is logic without math.

Granted I listened to the broadcast itself, but the topic wasn't about logic = math. It's about approaching debates as if you're approaching a proof. At least that was the way I heard it. Most of...

Granted I listened to the broadcast itself, but the topic wasn't about logic = math. It's about approaching debates as if you're approaching a proof. At least that was the way I heard it. Most of it was about breaking down the arguments and "facts".

That was probably an interesting broadcast about a mathematicians approach to other types of reasoning, but I think informal logic is a better tool to ascertain the truth of informal arguments...

That was probably an interesting broadcast about a mathematicians approach to other types of reasoning, but I think informal logic is a better tool to ascertain the truth of informal arguments (the kind you usually make in natural languages) than some adaptation of the notion of "mathematical proof".

Can I ask a dumb question?!! :-) Why do you call it "math"? Why do you not call it "maths"? Are you doing "mathematic"? Or "mathematics"? Honest question!

I actually use both, maybe because I have family that's in the UK and HK. In Canada, we tend to use "math", while it seems like in the UK they use "maths" more. Random article I found: Math vs. maths

I actually use both, maybe because I have family that's in the UK and HK. In Canada, we tend to use "math", while it seems like in the UK they use "maths" more.

I heard this broadcast (available with transcript at the top of the page) a while ago, and really like the way Cheng breaks down an argument.

I really liked the following bit:

The article implies that logic and math are the same. They’re not. It is true there’s no math without logic, but there certainly is logic without math.

I made a somewhat similar point yesterday.

Granted I listened to the broadcast itself, but the topic wasn't about logic = math. It's about approaching debates as if you're approaching a proof. At least that was the way I heard it. Most of it was about breaking down the arguments and "facts".

That was probably an interesting broadcast about a mathematicians approach to other types of reasoning, but I think informal logic is a better tool to ascertain the truth of informal arguments (the kind you usually make in natural languages) than some adaptation of the notion of "mathematical proof".

Can I ask a dumb question?!! :-)

Why do you call it "math"?

Why do you not call it "maths"?

Are you doing "mathematic"?

Or "mathematics"?

Honest question!

I actually use both, maybe because I have family that's in the UK and HK. In Canada, we tend to use "math", while it seems like in the UK they use "maths" more.

Random article I found: Math vs. maths