Post-formal farts

when you’re finished with formal, your date’s gone, and you can finally rip ass

Hunter: man what a fun formal!
Haydn: yeah bro I got the post-formal farts now *farts nonstop for 3 minutes*

by mrincredible_69 December 5, 2021

Hard Problem of Formal Sciences

The paradox that formal systems like mathematics and logic, which are human creations of pure thought and symbol manipulation, describe and predict the physical universe with uncanny, often inexplicable accuracy. These sciences deal with abstract, necessary truths (2+2=4 is true in any possible universe). The hard problem is why these mind-born rule-sets, which require no empirical input, are so deeply "baked into" the fabric of our contingent, empirical reality. It's the question of whether we invent mathematics or discover it, and if we discover it, why is the universe inherently mathematical? The success of the formal sciences suggests a pre-established harmony between human reason and cosmic structure that borders on the mystical.

Example: A mathematician, working purely from axioms and logic, derives a strange, non-intuitive structure called a "Lie group." Decades later, a physicist finds that this exact mathematical structure perfectly describes the behavior of fundamental particles and forces in the Standard Model. The hard problem: How did a game of intellectual symbols, played out on notebooks, anticipate the operational code of the cosmos? It's as if the universe runs on software written in a programming language that the human brain, by sheer coincidence, independently invented for fun. This "unreasonable effectiveness" is the foundational shock of the formal sciences. Hard Problem of Formal Sciences.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Formal Meta-Fallacies

Meta-errors related to the realm of formal logic and deductive reasoning. This involves incorrectly asserting that an argument's formal structure is invalid when it is valid, or valid when it is invalid. It can also include the mistake of treating a formally valid but utterly unrealistic syllogism as a serious argument, or dismissing a formally invalid argument whose conclusion nonetheless happens to be true based on other evidence. It's pedantry or confusion at the level of logical syntax.

Formal Meta-Fallacies Example: Someone presents a logically valid deductive argument: "All cats are reptiles. Fluffy is a cat. Therefore, Fluffy is a reptile." A critic, missing the point about the false premise, attacks it by saying, "That's affirming the consequent!" This is a Formal Meta-Fallacy—they've incorrectly identified the formal structure. The argument is actually valid but unsound due to the false first premise.

by Dumu The Void February 4, 2026

Theory of Formal Social Control

The analysis of the organized, codified, and institutionalized systems that a society uses to enforce conformity and punish deviance. This includes laws, police, courts, prisons, military, regulatory agencies, and official sanctions. It is the visible, "hard" architecture of control, backed by the state's monopoly on legitimate violence.

Theory of Formal Social Control Example: A speed limit sign, a traffic camera, a ticket, a court date, and a fine are all components of Formal Social Control. They are explicit, written rules with defined penalties, administered by authorized agents of the state to control behavior (driving speed) for public order.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

Formal Philosophy

The branch of philosophy that applies the tools of formal logic and mathematics to traditional philosophical questions, producing arguments that are either airtight or reveal that the question was nonsense to begin with. Formal philosophers ask not just "what is truth?" but "what are the logical conditions under which a statement can be considered true?" and then write 200 pages of symbols that answer the question so precisely that no one can understand the answer. It's philosophy for people who found regular philosophy too vague and decided to fix that by making it incomprehensible.

Example: "He read a paper in formal philosophy that used modal logic to prove that God either exists necessarily or cannot exist at all. He understood the symbols, followed the proof, and concluded that the argument was logically valid. He then realized he had no idea whether God actually existed, which was where he'd started, but now with more symbols."

by Abzugal February 14, 2026

Formal Sociology

The specific application of formal methods—mathematical models, network analysis, formal logic—to the study of group dynamics and social structures. It attempts to reduce the messy complexity of human interaction to equations, graphs, and probabilities, producing beautiful diagrams that capture approximately 30% of what's actually happening. Formal sociology is beloved by academics who love numbers and distrusted by everyone who has ever been in a human relationship and knows that love, hate, and awkward silences don't fit neatly on a graph.

Example: "His formal sociology thesis mapped friendship networks using complex algorithms that predicted who would become friends based on proximity and shared interests. The algorithm correctly predicted 40% of friendships and completely missed the ones that formed because two people happened to hate the same guy. The model had no variable for 'shared enemy,' which was, formally speaking, a mistake."

by Abzugal February 14, 2026

Formal Social Sciences

The attempt to apply the methods of formal sciences—mathematics, logic, abstract modeling—to the study of human society, with predictably mixed results. Game theory explains why people cooperate (sometimes), social network analysis maps who talks to whom (approximately), and formal models of political behavior predict elections (except when they don't). The challenge is that humans are not logical symbols; we are messy, contradictory, and prone to doing things just because. Formal social sciences are what happen when mathematicians discover that people refuse to follow the rules.

Example: "A formal social sciences study used game theory to prove that rational actors would never start a war, as the costs always outweigh the benefits. The researchers then looked at human history, which is basically a list of wars, and concluded that humans are either irrational or playing a different game. Probably both."

by Abzugal February 14, 2026