The religion of science

[psyreporter]

Wrong. Science is based on evidence that does not depend on beliefs.

Morality is based on ‘values’ and that logically means that science also wants to get rid of philosophy.

It shows the path that science has pursued since as early as 1850. Science has intended to rid itself of philosophy.

Philosophy is bunk.
Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe, hypothesise, test, repeat. There’s no suggestion of belief ...

At first glance, science does not depend on foundationalism.

However, that opinion is incredibly short-sighted.

The scientific method demands observations and measurements, and therefore, the use of numbers. The patterns investigated in science must therefore be expressed as formulas that accept numbers as arguments, and return them as their results.

Hence, the consistency of the entire language of science is governed by Arithmetic Theory (PA).

Now, guess what?

Arithmetic Theory is staunchly foundationalist.

It is an axiomatic system that rests entirely on nine otherwise unjustified and unjustifiable beliefs, i.e. Peano's axioms. In that respect, there is no difference between arithmetic theory and morality. They are both based on a foundation of first principles.

Hence, if foundationalism is unacceptable to the scientist, he must at once stop using numbers. He can still make observations, but he will no longer be allowed to write them down by using numerical symbols of which the use is under control of foundationalist beliefs. He must also refrain from performing computations of which the consistency depends on the unjustified basic principles underpinning arithmetic theory.

Well, one could argue that mathematics is essentially pattern recognition that stems from rhythms observed in nature. Despite the theoretical squabbles, from a pure utilitarian perspective the use of numbers seems justified from a scientific point of view (i.e. in correspondence with observation).

I was just reading the book The Mystery of Life's Origin, a classic on the subject 'Intelligent Design' (scientific version) with multiple authors including philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer. It indicated that a primary motive of science to reject foundationalism or the 'God hypothesis' is that it would reduce the drive to make progress in science because it would make it possible to argue 'God did it' instead of spurring inquiry.

[heracleitos]

Well, one could argue that mathematics is essentially pattern recognition that stems from rhythms observed in nature.

The origin for inspiration in mathematics is indeed (often) the physical universe:

Abstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying structures, patterns or properties of a mathematical concept, removing any dependence on real world objects with which it might originally have been connected.

As long as there are still unremoved dependencies on real world objects, it is not considered "real" mathematics. In that case, it means that the abstraction process was not properly completed. The result is then considered "impure".

Mathematics is supposed to be "pure" (reason).

In "Critique of Pure Reason", Immanuel Kant complained about the fact that classical Euclidean geometry makes use of visual puzzles. Its incompletely abstracted visual representations still have a clear connection to the physical universe. It is therefore "impure" (reason).

The problem was solved by switching entirely to algebraic geometry, which does not even need to represent its symbolic language visually. All results can be obtained exclusively through symbol manipulation, i.e. algebra.

Classical Euclidean geometry has therefore mostly been abolished and replaced by algebra.

On the one side, inspiration from nature is indeed the reason why mathematics was historically possible in the first place.

On the other side, however, eliminating the link with nature completely, was also necessary. That is what allows mathematics to be, in Kant's lingo, "synthetic a priory", free and pure from "a posteriori" (sensorial) input.

In that sense, Immanuel Kant's objections in his "Critique of Pure Reason" to the classical Euclidean epistemology of mathematics have in the meanwhile been fully addressed.

Mathematics is not about the real world, and does not make use of sensory input. The work can be done entirely by manipulating symbols in formal language:

In the philosophy of mathematics, formalism is the view that holds that statements of mathematics and logic can be considered to be statements about the consequences of the manipulation of strings (alphanumeric sequences of symbols, usually as equations) using established manipulation rules. A central idea of formalism "is that mathematics is not a body of propositions representing an abstract sector of reality, but is much more akin to a game, bringing with it no more commitment to an ontology of objects or properties than ludo or chess."[1] According to formalism, the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers, sets, or triangles or any other coextensive subject matter — in fact, they aren't "about" anything at all.

Mathematics is therefore not about rhythms in nature. Mathematics is in fact not about anything at all.

[psyreporter]

Mathematics is therefore not about rhythms in nature. Mathematics is in fact not about anything at all.

While it may be so that Mathematics is a purely logical endeavour and thus not 'about' rhythms in nature, can it be said that Mathematics can have come about without rhythms observed in nature?

Mathematics stems from the capacity for reason and reasonableness cannot have existed before the potential for reasoning because the foundation of Mathematics cannot be of certain nature.

With Mathematics, one performs a quest for truth in the face of an unknown future (in time). That truth is directly bound to physical reality and thus Mathematics cannot stand separated from physical reality.

Discoveries made within Mathematics are discoveries made in the face of the same truth and unknown future that provides the Universe with the characterizability 'reality'.

When it concerns the question: can it be otherwise than what Mathematics deems to be truth? The answer should be that in the face of an unknown future - in time - a certainty factor cannot be possible.

When it concerns usefulness and success of Mathematics within the scope of a human perspective, it concerns a different question.

[Sy Borg]

Mathematics is the precise language of relationships between things, eg. there is more of x than y, or x weighs more than y, or it is taller or shorter, more dense or diffuse, more complex or simple, more integrated or chaotic, and so on.

Our usual languages approximately describe what mathematics describes precisely.

Personally, I became interested in statistics when I was young because I otherwise could not assess competing claims. Being on the spectrum, I found it intimidating to have one person telling me some *definite* fact and then deal with others telling me the exact opposite with the same conviction. "They were so certain that they musty be right!" one part of my brain would think. The other part replied, "But they differed". Gradually we work out that some people use aggression to avoid being challenged. Given those tactics, deep down, blusterers must surely realise that they are ignoring any information that is inconvenient to their preferred view, and are therefore vulnerable to being shown up.

So I started recording stats to see who was trustworthy and who was full of it. I love stats, but not everything can be measured or is something one would really want to measure. For instance, is there a point to measuring just how much you love your children, pets or spouses? No, life is for living, not for measuring, unless one is nerdy. Measuring is otherwise done to achieve goals, clarify competing claims or satisfy curiosity.

That's basically science too. There's no religion in science, even if a minority treat it that way. Our societies have been religious for centuries and old conditioning dies hard, so I see a religious approach to science as cultural latency.

[Pattern-chaser]

With Mathematics, one performs a quest for truth in the face of an unknown future (in time). That truth is directly bound to physical reality, and thus Mathematics cannot stand separated from physical reality.

It may be that maths is a tool we might use in a quest for truth, but it is not in itself part of that quest. Maths is a recognition of patterns that sometimes occur in nature, but it is a mapping tool, not a way of recognising such patterns directly. Mathematical relationships do seem to map well onto certain processes in reality itself, and this is its value. But maths does not exist in reality, any more than 'celebrity' exists in reality. It's an idea, or a collection of ideas; useful, but not actually part of reality in any meaningful way. IMO.

So I think maths can and does stand "separated from physical reality".

[snt]

Can it be said that a potential for a pattern, as unmasked by the pure reason endeavour 'the practice of mathematics' (an activity), is different then the patterns found in nature?

Yes, it can be said that patterns as disclosed by mathematics stand apart from what is 'deemed' physical reality. But isn't applicability to nature evident in its potential?

So long as the fundamental nature of the potential for a pattern is unknown, it cannot be said in my opinion that patterns as disclosed by mathematics stand apart from nature. The reason is that patterns in nature likely originate from that same potential.

In a way, what is done with 'the practice of' mathematics is to create beauty. With the practice of mathematics, one is close to fulfilling the potential for a pattern in the right sense, which could correspond with beauty.

Mathematics: Why the brain sees maths as beauty
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26151062

Mathematics is beautiful (no, really)
https://theconversation.com/mathematics ... ally-72921

People find religious satisfaction in Mathematics. This includes philosophers such as Bertrand Russell who was against religions.

Mathematics and religious experiences: philosopher Bertrand Russell
"Bertrand Russell explains how first experiencing mathematics as something timeless and eternal was analagous to a religious experience."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04xkncd

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, it can be said that patterns as disclosed by mathematics stand apart from what is 'deemed' physical reality. But isn't applicability to nature evident in its potential?

No. Applicability to nature is evident in its practice, I think.

[Pattern-chaser]

People find religious satisfaction in Mathematics.

This is vanishingly rare, IME.

[snt]

Yes, it can be said that patterns as disclosed by mathematics stand apart from what is 'deemed' physical reality. But isn't applicability to nature evident in its potential?

No. Applicability to nature is evident in its practice, I think.

Yes, you are right. But what can explain such a practice from a philosophical perspective? A practice is fulfilment of potential. It is the potential that would be at question to explain it.

[Pattern-chaser]

A practice is fulfilment of potential.

And yet, until it is fulfilled, potential is nothing more than speculation; wishful thinking; prediction; future-telling; guesswork. Only when it is actualised, and we use the 20-20 vision of hindsight, does potential become anything more than I have described.

[Sy Borg]

Math is a tool and a language, like English, but it describes relative quantities rather than relative qualities, although qualitative properties can be inferred.

[heracleitos]

With Mathematics, one performs a quest for truth in the face of an unknown future (in time). That truth is directly bound to physical reality and thus Mathematics cannot stand separated from physical reality.

The correspondentist notion of truth is not applicable to pure reason, including mathematics. There is nothing a posteriori in pure reason. Pure reason is blind and completely a priori. Truth in mathematics is foundationalist and coherentist and rejects correspondentism completely.