My name is Wai from Edmonton

[Wklau]

My name is Wai from Edmonton, Canada. I am brand new in this forum, just since one day ago. This is my first post and I love philosophy as well.

I start from the terms of hard science and soft science, "hard science" indeed is very convincing for many type of people, especially those mathematical interpretations are seem to be indispensable and infallible to me. Not until I touch the western philosophy, for instance the Fregean argument for mathematical Platonism, the Russell's paradox, the Gödel's incompleteness theorems ... then I notice that our conventional hard science before 1920 is rooted on many beliefs that are not being proved, or explained, or justified. For examples, the axiom of choice, the mathematical induction, the infinite, or whether the number "3" is existed or not regarding to ontology, but we are using these for thousands of year without so much troubles. In this area, I am in the learning stage, welcome for any further discussion.

I believe (note that, believe is far away from true) that, religion studies, social studies, humanity studies ... are soft science, since those debates are nearby human-to-human argue. Thus, in many paper, if the content (semantic approach) is fulfilling with political correctness, strong rhetorical euphemistic skill, then it may win the mainstream society easily, but not the education. I believe that philosophy is far more close to hard science than soft science (note that, the classification of hard/soft science cannot based on dichotomy, since they are not mutually exclusive (for example, medical school and music are neither hard nor soft), since the dialectic approach in philosophy is kind of in depth thinking about the universe. Whitehead, Russell and Wittgenstein had applied strictly symbolic language (highly mathematical) to interpret the dialectic arguments in philosophy. I believe that merely using hard science (for example, Schrödinger equation in physics or Fermat last theorem in math any-kind), is NOT possible to describe ANYTHING. Say what is "apple" , so first step we may focus on its color, taste, size, structure ..., then inevitably we have to touch the area of biology, then single cell, then the origin of life, then rationalism, theism, pantheism, creationism, determinism, regression problem and so on.

In my opinion, the more we study the more we get confuse. This is because not the life is too short, but the knowledge is too huge.

-- Updated April 14th, 2017, 11:04 am to add the following --

If the truth is kind of hurt, then choose lie; if lie is kind of hurt, please chooses silence; if silence is kind of hurt, please chooses leave. Truth and False in humanity studies is highly ethical orientated.