I would need a precise definition of "non-math people" and of what you mean by "rationality" before I could give any answer to this.
I could quibble at length about defining "rationality," an epistemological nightmare, and about any premise that people who cannot do math necessarily view it as lacking utility. But I'll just say that any brief answer will be seriously flawed.
Math is useful because it deals in a logical and disciplined way with counting and measurement and similar exact relationships found in the physical universe. People can grasp the utility of that skill even if they have not learned it and do not want to learn it themselves.
Math has an aesthetic appeal to those with a certain type of intellectual curiosity.. That is not explicable at all to those who do not share that type of curiousity.
Actually, my own experience contradicts that point.Have you ever been in a classroom after a test to hear those who fail say: "Oh, I'm not surprised that my score is low. Math is not for me. I just do not think analytically." This is a common excuse for hiding the truth. That is, the truth that certain individuals find irrational reasons to defend the "non-math" circle of students who simply do not find "rationality" in terms of numbers.
Actually, my own experience contradicts that point.
I was initially a student who did not "get" math. It seemed to me a set of rules of no intellectual interest whatsoever: "3 + 4 = 7" and "equals plus equals equals equals." Needless to say, I did not get great grades in math, but I liked languages and history, which were what I majored in during college. Late in high school, however, we were learning about functions in what I suppose would now be called pre-calculus. All of a sudden, in a matter of weeks, I caught on to abstraction, relationships, pattern, etc. All the boring rules were the foundation of an immense edifice. And the mathematical notation is just another language, much sparer than natural languages but far more exact in its limited domain. And I was good at languages.
Luckily, I went to schools that did not much care what students wanted to study. I had to study math, and there was no formal tracking. (For grade school, I literally went to a three-room school house, and the kids sort of tracked themselves.) Eventually, it clicked. I am by no means a mathematician, able to discover new abstractions and new techniques. But I can understand those branches of mathematics where I have been taught by teachers who can remember where and why they had difficulty.
Actually, my own experience contradicts that point.
I was initially a student who did not "get" math. It seemed to me a set of rules of no intellectual interest whatsoever: "3 + 4 = 7" and "equals plus equals equals equals." Needless to say, I did not get great grades in math, but I liked languages and history, which were what I majored in during college. Late in high school, however, we were learning about functions in what I suppose would now be called pre-calculus. All of a sudden, in a matter of weeks, I caught on to abstraction, relationships, pattern, etc. All the boring rules were the foundation of an immense edifice. And the mathematical notation is just another language, much sparer than natural languages but far more exact in its limited domain. And I was good at languages.
Luckily, I went to schools that did not much care what students wanted to study. I had to study math, and there was no formal tracking. (For grade school, I literally went to a three-room school house, and the kids sort of tracked themselves.) Eventually, it clicked. I am by no means a mathematician, able to discover new abstractions and new techniques. But I can understand those branches of mathematics where I have been taught by teachers who can remember where and why they had difficulty.
In my opinion you have asked a ridiculous question. By "rationality of mathematics" do you mean the rational for mathematics study?In your opinion, what is the rationality of mathematics to every math enthusiast that non-math people cannot grasp?
In my opinion you have asked a ridiculous question. By "rationality of mathematics" do you mean the rational for mathematics study?
There is no shame in being what you call non-math people. That is just a fact of life for some people. But those people have not right to expect to be in positions the require mathematical skills any more than I have no right to have been on any of my schools athletic teams (a birth defect ended that). On the other hand, if you are asking a deeper question about foundations then I have a book you should read. It is THE NUMBER SENSE: How the Mind Creates Mathematics by Stansislas Debaene. Debaene is a professor of brain science at the University of Paris. He means the his subtitle in the most literal sense: human brains created mathematics to makes sense( to explain) out of experience. Just this year, 2019, the creation of a black hole was confirmed. Einstein's mathematics predicted that result one hundred years ago.
In my opinion you have asked a ridiculous question. By "rationality of mathematics" do you mean the rational for mathematics study?
There is no shame in being what you call non-math people. That is just a fact of life for some people. But those people have not right to expect to be in positions the require mathematical skills any more than I have no right to have been on any of my schools athletic teams (a birth defect ended that). On the other hand, if you are asking a deeper question about foundations then I have a book you should read. It is THE NUMBER SENSE: How the Mind Creates Mathematics by Stansislas Debaene. Debaene is a professor of brain science at the University of Paris. He means the his subtitle in the most literal sense: human brains created mathematics to makes sense( to explain) out of experience. Just this year, 2019, the creation of a black hole was confirmed. Einstein's mathematics predicted that result one hundred years ago.
It is not a ridiculous question. The question is mine but derives from a university debate between the late Christopher Hitchens and Dr. Frank Turek concerning the question DOES GOD EXIST?
I have done year long post doctoral study in both the philosophy of religion (Manchester, UK) & philosophy of mathematics, so you may be out of your depth here. The human brain is a product of the universal principle of evolution the same principle that is responsible for all that we know. Come on, both Hitchens & Turek are jokes in the academic community. Do you have any academic grounding in either of these?Exactly. The human brain CREATED mathematics. Who created the human brain and all its complexities? Let me guess: THE HUMAN BRAIN POPPED OUT OF THIN AIR.
I have done year long post doctoral study in both the philosophy of religion (Manchester, UK) & philosophy of mathematics, so you may be out of your depth here. The human brain is a product of the universal principle of evolution the same principle that is responsible for all that we know. Come on, both Hitchens & Turek are jokes in the academic community. Do you have any academic grounding in either of these?
I would say mathematical systems or formulations are devised/invented by people, and then the implications of these systems are painstakingly discovered.
But let's not get into a debate about creationism vs. evolution, or fallacies like complexity implies design, because that debate has long since clearly been decided.
Yes, we are all thinking creatures with minds. No disagreement there. I will leave it at that.
You already have.
?
I don't understand what you have in mind.I could have said something worst ...
Are you trying to mince words? You have already posted about religion a number of times in the forum, so my point is that it's too late for you to claim that you won't "bring God into FMH".... I see nothing wrong with the word God.