I was talking about this with someone the other day and i thought it was really intriguing. What is math?

We were trying to classify what math was. He was saying it is a religion because we must accept the tools of math to use them (i.e. numbers, etc.), and i was saying it's a science because there's a delineation between religion and science in that in both you accept them but religion entails a certain amount of dogma that a science doesn't have because of its ability to be substantiated utilizing tools outside of its own workings (i.e. not proving math is science through math, but through observations of reality and others, no circular reasoning is what i'm saying).

I was thinking math is something all on its own, but it's really NOT that unique. So i decided against it.

Anyway, if anyone wants to know what my definition of science is, it's as i outlined before, i delineate it by establishing what religion is and i differentiate it from there. If you want to be more specific, i guess i could elaborate..but i don't think that would necessarily help anything.



So waht does everyone think?

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I think math is separate. I find it to be separate because you can use math to prove most anything - even more math. Math is defined by the math before it. I don't know number theory (at all) but I do know there are proofs for everything under the sun when it comes to the bases of math we use today. Therefore math, in my mind, is on a higher level because there is no "faith-based" assumptions. It is true there is no dogma involved with math. Depending on how you look at it, math is either better than religion or science or just a science. I'd think your view on it as a science is accurate but when I think about it, there aren't many things I can think of in math that require "faith".

Or are you saying maybe..."why does 1 + 1 = 2?" I'd say "because that is how mathematics defined it" but a person who says math requires some sort of faith could say "you're taking on faith the fact that 2 is twice as much as 1..."
To that I'd say that 2 is defined to be twice as much as 1, and that is not faith. That's number theory, something I hope to get deep into in college.

__________________
When the day is done
you are all that is left

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

yes, number theory hehe i was thinking about reading something about it online before i posted this thread but i have not yet, and probably will not. Anything i acquire online from it will be limited and vague anyway most probably.

But, yeah i define science as anything established through observational data and then extrapolated on to create its own code (theoretical explanation) for a phenomenon in reality.

I don't think science has to be "substantiated" because that's all circular reasoning. I don't uphold the social tenet of it being "valid" or whatever as opposed to astrology. I like to group them all in a category and call them science, and some of which i like to subjectively dub "bad science", but i don't really care if difference of opinions incur.

Anyway, yeah well anything in mathematics. 1 + 1 = 2, i'd say that works and was developed not because of faith or anything, but from observations of real life. Hypothetically, People in the past took two objects and put them together and realized there were more than what they called "1" then they called this new "number" "1", all self creations through observations to then extrapolate on all this to create numbers or something (theoretical explanation), that was some dumb version i made up and isn't that good but you get the point. People created science through observations, they couldn't have concocted this by themselves. I, favoring empiricists, would think it'd be impossible for people to just establish math wihtout observations. And, the moment we observe to establish something, it becomes a science. Don't take that out of context though, that doesn't mean we can take that to infinite levels and be like "well, the science of pen twirling" or any other minisculity we could think of. I mean that if you observe and then create a theoretical explanaiton to explain the observed phenomenon, then it is technically a science. Sure, there could be other minisculities, but i don't want to put conditions on the definition.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged