What ought to be surprising is that the "thing" itself doesn't change.

A learning that describes chaos well enough may not want to be associated with "calculus", or even "math" (ask a friendly reverse mathematician about that)

https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2021/04/09/period-three-impli...

Somewhat tangentially, if Ptolemy I had responded (to Euclid) with anything less specific ---but much more personal--- than "check your postulate", we wouldn't have had to wait one millennium.

(Fermat did the best he could given margin & ego, so that took only a century or so (for that country to come up with a workable strategy))

Less tangentially, I'd generalize Quigley by mentioning that groups of hominids stymie themselves with a kind of emergent narcissism. After all, heuristics,rules and even values informed by experience & intuition are a sort of arrogance. "Tautology" should be outlawed in favour of "Narcissism" as a prosocial gaslighting term :)