8 ms·

Not that you were, but I don't quite understand why people get so caught up on this fact. There are objective facts about the nature of reality, and we are all

Not that you were, but I don't quite understand why people get so caught up on this fact. There are objective facts about the nature of reality, and we are all (or at least competent practitioners in the field) are thoroughly convinced that we have identified a subset of these facts. These presumed facts have helped us do things like go to the moon and build skyscrapers, but then someone comes along with the old "but how do you actually know" argument of a college freshman, and then we get into a conversation about the potential social relativism of math. All the while, people will see a half-assed psychology study with a questionable procedure, weak at best, erroneous at worst statistics and therefore tenuous at best conclusions, and this study is taken to be "true" and might legitimately impact notable institutions. Yet when we're talking about extremely complicated topics that exist on the edge of the horizon of human intuition, no matter how obvious the impact some people just refuse to accept things as objective simply because they fail to intuitively understand them. Foundational fields like mathematics and physics are as objective as we can get. If you don't accept that, your belief about what is objectively true ends at cogito ergo sum and that's that. This has always been such a pointless conversation in my mind.

joelfried 3y ago
We communicate with words, and people as a whole are used to being lied to and gaslit regularly especially by those in power. It's true that mathematics and the hard sciences have mechanisms for understanding that are on a different scale than, say, ethics and morality. However, it takes time for people -- especially those currently engaged in questioning the nature of their reality[1] -- to accept that in this specific instance lying and gaslighting are a lot harder[2]. The people who eventually accept and internalize the distinction around things that can be objectively shown to be true are those who by in the large have done some of the work to understand these things themselves. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is beautiful but it takes work to understand and if it didn't, it wouldn't be much of a meaningful breakthrough. Nobody is proving that 3+5=8 and then 4+5=9. So what the average person sees is a high level language they can't speak with people being absolutely positive that this thing is special and true and incontrovertible. That raises red flags when you're dealing with folks talking about normal everyday stuff, doesn't it? It's a lot harder to say "but I don't understand" and a lot easier to say "but what if you're wrong" socially. [1] As all college first years do, right? [2] Let's face it, lying to people is never impossible, it's just harder to be successful when you can be fact checked.
smif 3y ago
> There are objective facts about the nature of reality This is a pretty bold claim and you would have to do a bit of work to make it more convincing. Besides, it's not really how science works. Different theories wax and wane over time all the time. What we're really doing with science is coming up with ever better models that give us greater predictive power. You could argue that at the macro scale we're asymptotically approaching some kind of objective truth with the whole endeavor of science, but you can't simply tunnel across that gap and make the leap to say that we know there is an objective truth. The best that we can do is probably say something along the lines of "these are the best methods of getting closer to the truth that we have available - if anyone claims to have better methods, they are very likely wrong", but you still need to have the humility to accept that even the best models that we have to date are not infallible. They do not give us the objective truth, nor do they promise to, but they are the most effective tools that we have available to us at the current time. This is critically not the same as claiming that they give us the objective truth. You could say that for all intents and purposes/everyday usage, "sure, these are objective facts about reality" - but I don't actually think that helps anyone and it serves to foment mistrust towards science and scientists. I think the best chance we have at preserving the status of science and scientists in our society starts by being honest about what it actually is giving us - which is quite a lot, but let's not oversell it for the sake of convience or whatever.
- abnry 3y ago
  > Besides, it's not really how science works. You reject objective facts but respond with a claim about objectivity.
  - smif 3y ago
    I wouldn't reject objective facts, but I also wouldn't believe they exist any more than I would believe Santa Claus exists, unless someone can successfully argue for their existence. AFAIK this has yet to be done by philosophers (though there have been many attempts). E: I should mention that it's not just a binary yes or no here, there is a 3rd option of "I don't know" and I would rabidly defend the "I don't know" camp until someone can convincingly argue one way or the other. All of this has nothing to do with the actual usefulness of science which is unquestionable in my opinion. This is strictly talking about science "overreaching" into the philosophical realm if you will, where even from the start, methodologically it doesn't have the right tools to answer these questions. You don't prove scientific theories "true", you just accumulate more and more supporting evidence. It never hits a magical moment where the neon lights turn on and a sign says "Your theory is now true! Congratulations!". And even if it did, it would be fleeting anyway because there are no sacred cows here - your theory can just as easily get supplanted by a better theory in light of more evidence.
BeetleB 3y ago
> All the while, people will see a half-assed psychology study with a questionable procedure, weak at best, erroneous at worst statistics and therefore tenuous at best conclusions, and this study is taken to be "true" ... > Yet when we're talking about extremely complicated topics that exist on the edge of the horizon of human intuition, no matter how obvious the impact some people just refuse to accept things as objective simply because they fail to intuitively understand them. I think the intersection of these two groups is the null set. > Foundational fields like mathematics and physics are as objective as we can get. Objective? Yes. But objective does not equate to "true"[1]. One requires data, and the other lives only in the mind. It is not at all problematic to ponder over whether mathematics is "true" - most mathematicians have an opinion one way or another, and they are not unanimous in their opinions. [1] True w.r.t reality, not true in the logic sense.
- hgsgm 3y ago
  Quite the opposite. The majority of people I will believe some random bogus psych or nutrition study the news, while denying quantum mechanics results.
- SleekEagle 3y ago
  I have no idea what "true" means if it does not mean "a quality of a statement as being an accurate description of objective reality". While mathematics itself may be a human invention, it clearly describes a fundamental truth as evidenced by its continued reliance in producing effective models that describe the measurable world, which must be taken as a reflection of objective reality. Again, you can feel free to deny this, but all you are left with is cogito ergo sum.
  - BeetleB 3y ago
    > While mathematics itself may be a human invention, it clearly describes a fundamental truth as evidenced by its continued reliance in producing effective models that describe the measurable world, which must be taken as a reflection of objective reality. It often describes the fundamental truth, because much of its origins was for that purpose, not because all mathematics is fundamentally true. There's plenty of mathematics that is not modeled by the measurable world - almost by design. Just pick a different set of axioms and you'll get mathematical truths that may conflict with reality. According to many mathematicians, uncountable infinities don't exist, and they focus on doing math without relying on them. There goes the real number line. From a scientist's perspective, either they exist or they don't. Both cannot be true. From a mathematician's perspective, both are truths. Similarly, either the Axiom of Choice is true or it isn't. Yet the bulk of mathematics is fine with or without it.
reso 3y ago
This fact is interesting because many people grew up with an idea of mathematics as having discovered fundamental truth, and some of us, when we get deep into the field, realize that Math is made up of human ideas, exactly the same as a very complex boardgame we play in our heads, and that the belief that these boardgames represent something fundamental about reality is it's own leap of faith.
- SleekEagle 3y ago
  How is it a leap of faith when mathematical models that describe reality demonstrate continued reliance in making predictions? Does this not demonstrate that there exist mathematical relationships between certain physical quantities?
goodbyesf 3y ago
> There are objective facts about the nature of reality Such as? > "but how do you actually know" argument of a college freshman Epistemology has been studied by some of the greatest thinkers since the ancient greeks ( probably even before ) and not just college freshmen. > no matter how obvious the impact some people just refuse to accept things as objective simply because they fail to intuitively understand them. If you have to intuitively understand them, it isn't very objective is it? > Foundational fields like mathematics and physics are as objective as we can get. What in math are objective facts about the nature of reality? Where in nature is the number 1? Also do you realize that many mathematicians don't even accept the 'reality' of real numbers. I think as you think more deeply about these topics, you will change your tune.
- lmm 3y ago
  > If you have to intuitively understand them, it isn't very objective is it? They were talking about things that you don't have to (and indeed can't) intuitively understand. > What in math are objective facts about the nature of reality? Where in nature is the number 1? In all sorts of places, not least counting things. Mathematics is about equivalences; the point of saying 2 + 2 = 4 isn't to make some funny marks on paper or pray to the platonic void, it's to say that if you have something that's 2-like and combine it with something that's 2-like in a way that's +-like, then the result will be =-like to something 4-like, in the same sense of "like".
  - goodbyesf 3y ago
    > They were talking about things that you don't have to (and indeed can't) intuitively understand. He was talking about objective things that people fail to to intuitively understand. > In all sorts of places, not least counting things. So where? Just one. Give me where 1 exists so I can check it out. > Mathematics is about equivalences; No. Mathematics is about theorem generation. Going from axioms to theorems via proofs. Though some go from theorems to find axioms. > it's to say that if you have something that's 2-like and combine it with something that's 2-like in a way that's +-like, then the result will be =-like to something 4-like, in the same sense of "like". What you are describing is just arithmetic. That's the interpretation or model for one particular set of axioms, theorems, etc. What's objective about 2-like? Feels abstract. Funny I asked a simple question and yet you rambled on about nonsense you don't even understand.
calf 3y ago
After the article, my opinion is going to be that people do this because they are politically privileged by a social relativistic argument. The professor in the interview is advantaged by the narrative that proofs are socially constructed. Indeed, mathematics and any other STEM field is deeply political. People are politics. But to confuse that--that STEM as practiced is socially constructed and political--and to make a sloppy ontological conclusion about what STEM/math is, is a deeply neoliberalizing argument. So I'm inclined to make the argument that it is actually the neoliberal intellectuals who try to spin this as fundamentally only a human enterprise, because it privileges their social standing as the "correct" practitioners of this compact: capitalism requires that mathematicians be able to "sell" each other the truth of their proofs. Indeed, the article mentions the Mochizuki controversy but I don't think they understood the social problem. See, it doesn't matter if Mochizuki is right or wrong, or if people understood his 500 pages or not. It is that in principle it could be shown that he is right or wrong. And that's unlike, say, the Bible, which is also a social compact. Reduction of STEM to social construct throws the baby out with the bathwater.

joelfried 3y ago

We communicate with words, and people as a whole are used to being lied to and gaslit regularly especially by those in power. It's true that mathematics and the hard sciences have mechanisms for understanding that are on a different scale than, say, ethics and morality. However, it takes time for people -- especially those currently engaged in questioning the nature of their reality[1] -- to accept that in this specific instance lying and gaslighting are a lot harder[2]. The people who eventually accept and internalize the distinction around things that can be objectively shown to be true are those who by in the large have done some of the work to understand these things themselves. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is beautiful but it takes work to understand and if it didn't, it wouldn't be much of a meaningful breakthrough. Nobody is proving that 3+5=8 and then 4+5=9. So what the average person sees is a high level language they can't speak with people being absolutely positive that this thing is special and true and incontrovertible. That raises red flags when you're dealing with folks talking about normal everyday stuff, doesn't it? It's a lot harder to say "but I don't understand" and a lot easier to say "but what if you're wrong" socially. [1] As all college first years do, right? [2] Let's face it, lying to people is never impossible, it's just harder to be successful when you can be fact checked.

smif 3y ago

> There are objective facts about the nature of reality This is a pretty bold claim and you would have to do a bit of work to make it more convincing. Besides, it's not really how science works. Different theories wax and wane over time all the time. What we're really doing with science is coming up with ever better models that give us greater predictive power. You could argue that at the macro scale we're asymptotically approaching some kind of objective truth with the whole endeavor of science, but you can't simply tunnel across that gap and make the leap to say that we know there is an objective truth. The best that we can do is probably say something along the lines of "these are the best methods of getting closer to the truth that we have available - if anyone claims to have better methods, they are very likely wrong", but you still need to have the humility to accept that even the best models that we have to date are not infallible. They do not give us the objective truth, nor do they promise to, but they are the most effective tools that we have available to us at the current time. This is critically not the same as claiming that they give us the objective truth. You could say that for all intents and purposes/everyday usage, "sure, these are objective facts about reality" - but I don't actually think that helps anyone and it serves to foment mistrust towards science and scientists. I think the best chance we have at preserving the status of science and scientists in our society starts by being honest about what it actually is giving us - which is quite a lot, but let's not oversell it for the sake of convience or whatever.

abnry 3y ago
> Besides, it's not really how science works. You reject objective facts but respond with a claim about objectivity.
- smif 3y ago
  I wouldn't reject objective facts, but I also wouldn't believe they exist any more than I would believe Santa Claus exists, unless someone can successfully argue for their existence. AFAIK this has yet to be done by philosophers (though there have been many attempts). E: I should mention that it's not just a binary yes or no here, there is a 3rd option of "I don't know" and I would rabidly defend the "I don't know" camp until someone can convincingly argue one way or the other. All of this has nothing to do with the actual usefulness of science which is unquestionable in my opinion. This is strictly talking about science "overreaching" into the philosophical realm if you will, where even from the start, methodologically it doesn't have the right tools to answer these questions. You don't prove scientific theories "true", you just accumulate more and more supporting evidence. It never hits a magical moment where the neon lights turn on and a sign says "Your theory is now true! Congratulations!". And even if it did, it would be fleeting anyway because there are no sacred cows here - your theory can just as easily get supplanted by a better theory in light of more evidence.

BeetleB 3y ago

> All the while, people will see a half-assed psychology study with a questionable procedure, weak at best, erroneous at worst statistics and therefore tenuous at best conclusions, and this study is taken to be "true" ... > Yet when we're talking about extremely complicated topics that exist on the edge of the horizon of human intuition, no matter how obvious the impact some people just refuse to accept things as objective simply because they fail to intuitively understand them. I think the intersection of these two groups is the null set. > Foundational fields like mathematics and physics are as objective as we can get. Objective? Yes. But objective does not equate to "true"[1]. One requires data, and the other lives only in the mind. It is not at all problematic to ponder over whether mathematics is "true" - most mathematicians have an opinion one way or another, and they are not unanimous in their opinions. [1] True w.r.t reality, not true in the logic sense.

hgsgm 3y ago
Quite the opposite. The majority of people I will believe some random bogus psych or nutrition study the news, while denying quantum mechanics results.
SleekEagle 3y ago
I have no idea what "true" means if it does not mean "a quality of a statement as being an accurate description of objective reality". While mathematics itself may be a human invention, it clearly describes a fundamental truth as evidenced by its continued reliance in producing effective models that describe the measurable world, which must be taken as a reflection of objective reality. Again, you can feel free to deny this, but all you are left with is cogito ergo sum.
- BeetleB 3y ago
  > While mathematics itself may be a human invention, it clearly describes a fundamental truth as evidenced by its continued reliance in producing effective models that describe the measurable world, which must be taken as a reflection of objective reality. It often describes the fundamental truth, because much of its origins was for that purpose, not because all mathematics is fundamentally true. There's plenty of mathematics that is not modeled by the measurable world - almost by design. Just pick a different set of axioms and you'll get mathematical truths that may conflict with reality. According to many mathematicians, uncountable infinities don't exist, and they focus on doing math without relying on them. There goes the real number line. From a scientist's perspective, either they exist or they don't. Both cannot be true. From a mathematician's perspective, both are truths. Similarly, either the Axiom of Choice is true or it isn't. Yet the bulk of mathematics is fine with or without it.

reso 3y ago

This fact is interesting because many people grew up with an idea of mathematics as having discovered fundamental truth, and some of us, when we get deep into the field, realize that Math is made up of human ideas, exactly the same as a very complex boardgame we play in our heads, and that the belief that these boardgames represent something fundamental about reality is it's own leap of faith.

SleekEagle 3y ago
How is it a leap of faith when mathematical models that describe reality demonstrate continued reliance in making predictions? Does this not demonstrate that there exist mathematical relationships between certain physical quantities?

goodbyesf 3y ago

> There are objective facts about the nature of reality Such as? > "but how do you actually know" argument of a college freshman Epistemology has been studied by some of the greatest thinkers since the ancient greeks ( probably even before ) and not just college freshmen. > no matter how obvious the impact some people just refuse to accept things as objective simply because they fail to intuitively understand them. If you have to intuitively understand them, it isn't very objective is it? > Foundational fields like mathematics and physics are as objective as we can get. What in math are objective facts about the nature of reality? Where in nature is the number 1? Also do you realize that many mathematicians don't even accept the 'reality' of real numbers. I think as you think more deeply about these topics, you will change your tune.

lmm 3y ago
> If you have to intuitively understand them, it isn't very objective is it? They were talking about things that you don't have to (and indeed can't) intuitively understand. > What in math are objective facts about the nature of reality? Where in nature is the number 1? In all sorts of places, not least counting things. Mathematics is about equivalences; the point of saying 2 + 2 = 4 isn't to make some funny marks on paper or pray to the platonic void, it's to say that if you have something that's 2-like and combine it with something that's 2-like in a way that's +-like, then the result will be =-like to something 4-like, in the same sense of "like".
- goodbyesf 3y ago
  > They were talking about things that you don't have to (and indeed can't) intuitively understand. He was talking about objective things that people fail to to intuitively understand. > In all sorts of places, not least counting things. So where? Just one. Give me where 1 exists so I can check it out. > Mathematics is about equivalences; No. Mathematics is about theorem generation. Going from axioms to theorems via proofs. Though some go from theorems to find axioms. > it's to say that if you have something that's 2-like and combine it with something that's 2-like in a way that's +-like, then the result will be =-like to something 4-like, in the same sense of "like". What you are describing is just arithmetic. That's the interpretation or model for one particular set of axioms, theorems, etc. What's objective about 2-like? Feels abstract. Funny I asked a simple question and yet you rambled on about nonsense you don't even understand.

calf 3y ago

After the article, my opinion is going to be that people do this because they are politically privileged by a social relativistic argument. The professor in the interview is advantaged by the narrative that proofs are socially constructed. Indeed, mathematics and any other STEM field is deeply political. People are politics. But to confuse that--that STEM as practiced is socially constructed and political--and to make a sloppy ontological conclusion about what STEM/math is, is a deeply neoliberalizing argument. So I'm inclined to make the argument that it is actually the neoliberal intellectuals who try to spin this as fundamentally only a human enterprise, because it privileges their social standing as the "correct" practitioners of this compact: capitalism requires that mathematicians be able to "sell" each other the truth of their proofs. Indeed, the article mentions the Mochizuki controversy but I don't think they understood the social problem. See, it doesn't matter if Mochizuki is right or wrong, or if people understood his 500 pages or not. It is that in principle it could be shown that he is right or wrong. And that's unlike, say, the Bible, which is also a social compact. Reduction of STEM to social construct throws the baby out with the bathwater.