Rationality of Mathematics

mathdad

Full Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Messages
737
In your opinion, what is the rationality of mathematics to every math enthusiast that non-math people cannot grasp?
 
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 would need a precise definition of "non-math people" and of what you mean by "rationality" before I could give any answer to this.

1. By "rationality" I mean the main use of numbers in a world that gets more complex by the minute.

2. By "non-math" people I mean those in society who honestly believe they are not good in math.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

You have a degree in history, right?. Did you learn math on your own? I took pre-calculus as an elective course in 1993 and passed with an A minus. Not bad for someone majoring in sociology at the time. You see, I never quite understood math at any level until college. You see, I consider myself a victim of NYC public school education.

Of course, I failed the CUNY math entrance exam called MAT. So, my college math journey began in remedial courses. The goal of remedial math is to prepare students to pass the MAT not to actually teach mathematics, which is very typical in NYC public schools and more so today.

At NYC Technical College, I started with arithmetic and slowly made my way into pre-calculus. Honestly, it was through the excellent teaching of professor Buckley in pre-algebra where my interest in math became a reality. However, when I wanted to switch to math, I was already too deep into sociology.

There was nothing stopping me from switching my major EXCEPT that it meant more time on campus for me. By this time, I was tired of school, exams, professors, the campus life. So, I decided to remain within the realms of sociology. This is my BIGGEST regret ever!! Some questions for you later.
 
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.

Questions:

1. What is your favorite math course?
2. What is the toughest math course you have ever taken?
3. What is your view of standardized exams?
4. What do you think about the recent college scandal involving actress Lori Loughlin and other celebrities?
5. Do you also know physics?
 
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?
 
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.

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.
 
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?
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 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?

1. I am not a philosopher.

2. I do not have a Ph.D in any field of study.

3. I respectfully disagree about Turek and the late Hitchens as being two jokes or clowns.

4. I am not an expert in any field of study. However, the complexities of DNA have recently been discovered. We've had DNA all along.

5. Two human minds have been credited for calculus and all that it offers. You know who they are, two thinking humans not animals but human in every sense of the word explained derivative, integration, limits, etc like no one else could in their era.

6. It takes a HUMAN brain to solve mathematics. For example, a dog cannot pass a kindergarden course in its very simplest form. Animals react to situations around them based on instincts not intelligence.

7. We have a brain different than the mind. Both did not pop into existence from a blast in space. The rationality of mathematics stems from the CREATED HUMAN MIND. Of course, all created creatures have a creator. In conclusion, thank God for mathematics and the rationality it teaches all who enter its domain.
 
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.
 
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.

I will not bring God into FMH. The fact that I responded to you now on my lunch break at work and the fact that you responded to my earlier post tells me that we are two thinking creatures that talk, chat, text, etc. I expect humans to respond and help me with math here.

I will never enter the Bronx Zoo to ask a gorilla for help with word problems. Humans are limited but animals are far more limited. I am not an animal. I am a thinking human with a created mind.
 
Yes, we are all thinking creatures with minds. No disagreement there. I will leave it at that. :)
 
I could have said something worst ...
I don't understand what you have in mind.

... I see nothing wrong with the word God.
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".

\(\;\)
 
Top