Explore Science-first Philosophy

Was Pythagoras’ thinking flawed?

~ < 1 of audio

Author note. 

Explore voice = Exploratory style. Very punchy. Personal, and lively using “me,” “you,” “us,” and “I” freely.

I want you to feel me right there with you. We use “I” and “me” and “us” without apology. If the Explain voice is a bridge, the Explore voice is the hike we take across it. It is lively, reflective, and sometimes a bit raw. It is the sound of a shared exploration where I lead you by the hand, but we both discover the view at the same time.

This is where I get to think out loud. Not with definitions, we aren’t just looking at the facts; we are looking at how they feel and what they mean for our lives. I’m talking to you about what I’ve found and what I’m still figuring out. It is engaging because it is real, and it is reflective because it is honest.

The goal is real advice and enjoyable reading. I want to land on something you can actually use. It’s about being direct, being punchy, and making sure that by the time we reach the end of the page, we’ve both found something worth keeping.

And now the piece.

Was Pythagoras’ thinking flawed?

The short answer is yes and no. Pythagoras’ belief system often overpowered his science, yet his empirical observations stood the test of time.  This makes him a rational pragmatist—someone who accepts empirical truths but also accommodates personal beliefs, sometimes at the cost of reason. Unfortunately for his reputation, many of his personal beliefs were wrong.

The longer answer is that Pythagoras is a fascinating case study in both sound and flawed thinking as well as an interesting use case of pragmatism as defined in chapter 22 of 30 Philosophers. For my new look at pragmatism, there are three types: empirical, rational, and irrational. An empirical pragmatist is someone like me. Someone who is trying to live their life believing in no irrational ideas. In general, I believe in common things until proven wrong, but I also pay close attention to questioning everything, and like any skeptic, I keep an open mind to evaluating ideas.

Unlike empirical pragmatists, rational pragmatists like Pythagoras mix sound reasoning with personal beliefs. Some of those beliefs, like the divine nature of numbers, didn’t stand up to scrutiny. Most people are rational pragmatists. They believe in common knowledge but also hold onto the family’s religious beliefs. Most of my friends, and most people I know, are rational pragmatists, which mostly aligns with common knowledge, but they embrace things in support of their spirituality and specific religion. Beyond that, they are generally cautious about adopting ideas that lack evidence.

In contrast to both, the irrational pragmatist rejects even common truths, dismissing evidence outright. They frequently say things like “there is no such thing as truth.”


That Critical Thinking FAQ, 

was first published on TST 1 year ago.

The flashcard inspired by it is this.

Front: Which type of pragmatist rejects even common truths?
Back: Irrational pragmatist
All this is part of the broader TST project.
These short pieces do the quiet work of verification, ensuring that ideas remain grounded in reliable scholarship rather than repetition or assumption.
Claims are grounded at the smallest level possible, allowing evidence to be updated once and reflected everywhere it is used.

The end!

Scroll to Top