this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2026
234 points (98.3% liked)
People Twitter
10146 readers
722 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As someone who has taught both mathematics and statistics in his life the real difference boils down to proof Vs evidence.
The mathematician is uncertain because Gödel showed no system can prove its own consistency. Proof is (generally) rigourous enough that this is the main issue; once it has been proven (assuming your axioms are good), it's considered true.
The statistician is uncertain because they work with samples rather than the population. There is also the issue of inferring causation even if your sample isn't unrepresentative. With statistics you're always building evidence, but you can never have concrete proof via statistical methods alone.
Also fun fact, given that there is more than one type of mathematics (e.g. platonist Vs intuitionistic), some giving different answers to the same question (excluded middle/trichotomy on the reals), and all of which are equiconsistent, we realise that mathematics really is just a branch of philosophy (i.e. what axioms are you willing to believe).
Everything is philosophy, ultimately