Mathematics: A socially constructed science

[~[ Greased Gerbil ]~]

I've heard a number of times that mathematics is the only science that can claim to dispense indisputable truths, and that all others are susceptible to bias and interpretation. However, a few things struck me about mathematics:

1. It relies completely on a macro-social consensus as to the representative value of numerals and a common number system. For example, mathematics would be markedly different if we were still using Roman numerals.

2. Who decided decimal was the way to go? I mean, why aren't we using binary, or Base-8 numeracy. It one again comes down to societal norms.

3. Mathematics and the sciences based upon it are simply validated human creations, mandated in order to operationalise the universe; breaking it down into measurable factors, so that people can satisfy their need to over-complicate simple phenomena.

If two birds are sitting on my fence and two more join them, then mathematics tells us that there are four birds. But it could have told me that there are IV birds or 100 birds (binary). The example, however, is moot. Regardless of the arithmetic competence of the observer, the number of birds does not change. There are simply birds on a fence.

The second set of birds did not land on the fence in order to demonstrate the value of four birds. They landed on the fence because they wanted to. A dog chases a cat because that is fun, not because it is 72% larger than a cat. If a car falls from an aeroplane, we do not move from under it for the reason that it can reach a critical velocity of 267.5kph and impart 60,000psi of force on reaching us; we move because a car falling on you would really hurt.

I just think that some sciences insist that we should understand too much, and only serve to make us think too deeply about things, preventing us from noticing what is patently obvious.

[lone dragon]

Your just trying to get me into an arguement.

AGAIN..

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGG

Lone dragon

[agapooka]

Math is, in and of itself, not a science, as it requires no observation. It can complement science and science is mostly helpless without it.

Mathematics are put to better us in man-made devices, where a machine is expected to do a certain task. Mathematics will be used to design a efficient device and to predict how it will function.

Concerning binary and roman numerals, they simply are different ways to express the same number. IV is how the Romans wrote 4 and they expressed verbally as "quattuor", which became "cuatro" and "quatre" in Spanish and French, respectively. Spanish and French, however, both commonly use "4" and not "IV".

The binary example is a bit more interesting, though, as it truly would change the manner in which we did math, especially if we were thinking in terms of 8 and not 10.

Agapooka

[~[ Greased Gerbil ]~]

I'm no expert, but wasn't it nigh-upon impossible to multiply and divide with Roman numerals?

Imagine how different arithmetic would be if Romans controlled the world.

[agapooka]

I suppose that that depends on how they understood those numbers.

Like you, I am used to using Arabic numbers and so I would find it difficult to use Roman numerals in multiplication without converting them, even if only subconsciously, in my head, as I have grown accustomed to a certain method.

I mean, the words used by the Romans for their numbers do not reflect the numerals. They were still based on tens and as far as I'm concerned (although I may be wrong, here), the only difference was in the way they wrote them. Granted, they never had 0. At least, the Arabes came up with 0.

[Londo Mollari]

I've heard a number of times that mathematics is the only science that can claim to dispense indisputable truths, and that all others are susceptible to bias and interpretation. However, a few things struck me about mathematics:

1. It relies completely on a macro-social consensus as to the representative value of numerals and a common number system. For example, mathematics would be markedly different if we were still using Roman numerals.

Not really, you would think it would be difficult, but that only cos you are used to using a certain form of numerical representation. As with most things, using a system you are unfamiliar with will slow you down, but eventually you would adapt. Consider the opposite, if you had only ever used roman numerals, i'm pretty sure using conventional numbers would seem odd/difficult.

2. Who decided decimal was the way to go? I mean, why aren't we using binary, or Base-8 numeracy. It one again comes down to societal norms.

Perhaps the simplest answer to that would be the fact that humans have 10 digits (on our hands), while it is true that we technically do have 20, when considering feet, the inpracticality of counting using both hands and feet in everyday life is fairly obvious.

3. Mathematics and the sciences based upon it are simply validated human creations, mandated in order to operationalise the universe; breaking it down into measurable factors, so that people can satisfy their need to over-complicate simple phenomena.

You say they are validated, however, science is based on mathematics, which is in turn based on a series of axioms. The most obvious of these being 1 + 1 = 2, from this and variations upon it, 2 + 2 = 4. We build subtraction, multiplication etc, in fact, you could think off all mathematical operations as sumnations of these basic operations. The fact that 1 + 1 = 2, was decided upon by humans. As it is a human decision, and we are flawed, the decision itself is flawed. If 1 + 1 <> 2, then the whole of mathematics, and therefore science and engineering, falls to pieces.

If two birds are sitting on my fence and two more join them, then mathematics tells us that there are four birds. But it could have told me that there are IV birds or 100 birds (binary). The example, however, is moot. Regardless of the arithmetic competence of the observer, the number of birds does not change. There are simply birds on a fence.

The second set of birds did not land on the fence in order to demonstrate the value of four birds. They landed on the fence because they wanted to. A dog chases a cat because that is fun, not because it is 72% larger than a cat. If a car falls from an aeroplane, we do not move from under it for the reason that it can reach a critical velocity of 267.5kph and impart 60,000psi of force on reaching us; we move because a car falling on you would really hurt.

I just think that some sciences insist that we should understand too much, and only serve to make us think too deeply about things, preventing us from noticing what is patently obvious.

yes, sciences do explain a lot of useless things, basic models in general are theoretical only, for example, take a circle. Equation of which:

(x-a)^2 + (y-b)^2 = r^2

x and y = co-ords on the circle. Centre (a,b). Radius r.

This is a fairly straightforward equation, and allows for a lot of proofs. However, what is overlooked, is that a perfect cirlce is an equation and NOTHING MORE. It is theoretical, there is no such thing as a perfect circle, perfect circular motion etc. However, it is a USEFUL model, that allows us to explain phonomenon such as the swinging of a pendulum, to a very high degree of accuracy.

You say that things are patently obvious, some are not, tides are obvious, but unless u have local knowledge then they are hard to predict. Unless you know a function describing the tides behaviour over time, armed with that and the appropriate knowledge, you can predict the behaviour of the tide very accurately indeed. Which, in some walks of life, is absolutely critical.