Skip to main content

Truth seeking

[As an aside, I first want to say that I really want to start using gender-neutral pronouns.  I find he/she, (s)he, and alternating between he and she to all be awkward or ridiculous.  I think it's most reasonable to use just one pronoun when referring to "a generic person", and "they" simply won't do since it's plural.  So, I shall begin using gender-neutral pronouns.  There are many conventions out there, and as far as I am aware, none is more widely adopted than the other, so I will use the one I think sounds best, which is the Spivak convention (ey/em/eir/eirs/eirself).]

When a mathematician has a theory (usually called a conjecture), ey sets about to prove it using all of the tools of logic available to em.  If ey believes that ey has constructed a convincing proof, ey proceeds to share it with peers.  It is then reviewed by peers who determine whether they believe the proof or not.  If a hole in the logic is found by anyone, it is presented and the original mathematician (or possibly others) try to fix the hole, if it can be done.  Sometimes this is a very simple process, where no revision is necessary, and other times it can be a very complicated and drawn-out process, taking several months or several years to complete.

Even after the paper is published, it is not immune to scrutiny.  It has happened many times that after publication, something has been found to be wrong with a paper, and another mathematician (or the same one as the original author) will write another paper indicating the error of the previous.  This is good for the mathematical community because it helps minimize the amount of error that is propagated.

Why is it so important to have correct mathematics?  Because every science is based on mathematics.  With incorrect or flawed math, all of the applied fields--biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, computer science, etc--would also be flawed.  Correct mathematical principles are necessary for understanding the world in which we live.

Imagine, for a moment, if mathematical truth were treated the same way as religious truth.  One mathematician would make up rules for math that ey thought was true.  Ey would then claim that a superior being revealed these mathematical truths to em through some supernatural form of communication.  Ey would then preach these ideas of math to other people.  Ey would ask other people to learn these principles and to accept them.  Perhaps ey would encourage others to pray about these principles to find out if they are true--not to scrutinize them and determine whether there is a flaw, but just to get a warm feeling in eir heart that these teachings are in fact true.  The actual veracity of the teachings would not be on trial here, but only the learner's will--to see whether it would bend to that of the teacher.

Imagine that this original teacher actually did have a flaw in eir mathematical principles somewhere.  As society grew and more people adopted this flawed system, the other sciences would suffer from it.  Rocket ships wouldn't be able to make it to the moon with any real accuracy, because the math being used to try to get them there would not be working.  People might start asking whether the math behind the rocket theory was correct, to which the math-prophet would reply that they simply needed to have more faith in the mathematical teachings, and try harder to accept them into their own lives.

The error would never be solved, because it would not be suspect of causing this harm (or impediment) in society.  Anyone who might suggest that ey had a better version of the truth would be told that only the math-prophet was capable of receiving mathematical revelations, that the math-god knew all mathematical truth and would never deceive his people.  People who did question the math would be labeled as heretics, infidels, apostates, and heathens. Their opinion in anything would instantly not matter.  Simply for questioning a mathematical principle, they would be cast out of society and hated.

I hope that I have presented sufficiently the case for critical thinking and logic in the interest of seeking truth.  The only way to know the truth is to question what we currently accept as truth, to determine whether it really is true.  We must attack it at every angle.  It must never be preserved by words such as "sacred", "holy", or "divine".  These words only allow errors to be multiplied and perpetuated.  Question why something is true, question how it is true, question what evidence would support its truth, or what would its truth or falsehood imply.  Don't just accept something and drown out all contradictions.  That way you learn nothing.  That way you are arrogant.  Admitting that you might be wrong is the only way to attain a higher level of truth.

Popular posts from this blog

What's a gainer?

If you haven't already done so, I would suggest reading my previous post before reading this one.  It's sort of an introduction and gives the motivation.  Also, by way of disclosure, this post is not sexually explicit but it does touch on the topic of sexuality and how that relates to the subject at hand.

So, what is a gainer?  I'll relate, as best I can, the experiences I have gone through myself to help answer the question.  I remember when I was a young boy--perhaps around 6 or 7--I would have various fantasies.  Not sexual fantasies, just daydreaming about hypothetical situations that I thought were interesting or entertaining.  I had many different fantasies.  Sometimes I would fantasize about becoming very muscular, sometimes about becoming very fat.  
These fantasies varied in degree of magnitude and the subject of the fantasy.  Sometimes I myself would change weight--I would become muscular or fat.  Other times, I would do something to make other people fat or musc…

The scientific method vs the religious method

I find it interesting when people cite the fact that science keeps changing as a reason to disbelieve it and to believe instead in the "eternal" doctrines taught by some church or other.  Let's examine why science keeps changing.  Here's the scientific method.

Develop a hypothesis (this means "have a belief").Design an experiment to test the hypothesis.Conduct the experiment.Determine whether the hypothesis is believable based on the results of the experiment. This is why science keeps changing--because people notice flaws in it and correct them.  People once thought the solar system was geocentric, but now know that it's heliocentric.  How did this happen?  By using the scientific method.  Scientists are willing to admit that they're wrong.  They're willing to give up a bad idea when they see evidence that it makes no sense.  Contrast this with the religious method (simplified version). Have a belief.Look for evidence to support that belief.Ignor…

Cancel the gym

After I went to the gym this morning, I pulled in to the McDonald's drive through.  While waiting for my food, I played out in my mind a possible conversation I might have with someone concerning just this.  In fact, I have had many real conversations of similar nature.
"How was your morning?"
"It was good.  I went to the gym.  Then I grabbed a late breakfast at McDonald's on my way to work."
"Won't that cancel out?"
"Cancel what?"
"Going to McDonald's after the gym.  Won't that undo all the work you just did?"

I understand the humor.  I laugh about it.  It's funny.  And I think humor is an important thing, and that we should all laugh a little bit more and be offended a little bit less.  And so I write this not up-in-arms, but in the attempts of perhaps reaching some of those who literally believe this line of reasoning.

To the person who asserts that eating "cancels out" going to the gym, I ask just this…