Using mathematical logic to express logical arguments is a step toward the universal format for arguments mentioned in the presentation sent to the Guardian ( https://1drv.ms/b/s!AnmqNbk0QgkYgP8gCWXJ1tbzYVEHHA?e=Axj1rk ). The issue is that there is no strategy in math logic. In contrast, in math, true expressions should be true no matter which “strategy” has been deployed to present it. On the other hand, in the real world, as mentioned in the presentation PDF, arguments involve handpicking pieces of evidence and following a certain strategy to present them. That is against the nature of logic in math.
But by the OOP mindset, strategy is added to logic in math as well. In other words, if a mathematician requires expression A to be correct, they can construct a structure where A is indeed correct. But this will have implications. For example, based on that structure expression B might be incorrect as a consequence. Then logic will incorporate strategic processes.
To clarify the distinction with the current mindset, mathematicians currently search for true expressions (theorems) in a math structure. They link true expressions to derive a new true expression. But in the OOP mindset, expressions A, B, and C are required to be true, then a structure is built where those expressions are true and the aim is to see what type of structure will be generated eventually. In OOP A, B and C are classes and can be reshaped like mud to push the structure toward the intended format. This is in total contrast with fixed, unchangeable axioms.