No matter how well you atomize a proof there remains inferential gaps that gets filled by humans agreeing that something is obvious. Some are considered axiomatic, many aren’t.
I don’t remember the exact quote or source, but I once read something along the lines of “humans don’t prove anything, we just decide which side of the argument we will hold to a higher standard of proof.”
No matter how well you atomize a proof there remains inferential gaps that gets filled by humans agreeing that something is obvious. Some are considered axiomatic, many aren’t.
… That’s basically what many theists object to Yudkowsky’s sequences. “There are inferential gaps”.
I don’t remember the exact quote or source, but I once read something along the lines of “humans don’t prove anything, we just decide which side of the argument we will hold to a higher standard of proof.”
Motivated Continuing and Motivated Stopping? But accusing someone of that would be incurring in the Genetic Fallacy...