Postmodernist Thomas Kuhn once said, “the answers you get depend upon the questions you ask.” In science, the questions we ask are predetermined by a method, empirically based observations, and lead to explanations based on predictions that must take into account context, confounding variables, and consistency of repetitive experimentation. Results deemed conclusive must either align with previously discovered findings, theories, and laws of the universe or provide insight into the flaws of the previously stated conclusions, theories, and laws. As such, we as a society have come to the understanding that science accounts for everything that is “real.” But really, if we just change the questions that we are asking, science proves itself to be another belief system that we subscribe to under the guise that everything that we’re wondering is being universally proven and accepted. Unfortunately, the Snevets science department refuses to acknowledge this reality, and as such, students are being deprived of the postmodern approach to living a fulfilled life.
Snevets offers a plethora of different math classes all specifically geared towards different majors, including Numerical Methods for Civil and Environmental Engineering, Flow and Mass Transport in Porous Media, Discrete Math for Cryptology, Quantitative Biology, Stochastic Calculus for Financial Engineers; the list is basically never ending. Yet in the midst of all this, I wonder where students are afforded the opportunity to consider the fact that mathematical modeling in and of itself is a consequence of the social construct resultant of the digital age. In a sea of brainwashed engineers conditioned to believe technological progress signifies growth in civilization, and the notion of math being a result a social construct must seem absolutely abysmal. In response, allow me to introduce the liar paradox.
The liar paradox is exemplified by a seemingly simple statement: “this sentence is a lie.” Case 1 proceeds as follows: the statement is truly a lie, then the statement is true. However, the statement says that it’s a lie. Therefore, it cannot be true. Case 2 assumes that the statement is false. However, a lie that is false must not be a lie and must therefore be the truth. As such, there’s no way to prove the sentence, ergo the liar paradox.
In the early 1900s, Isaac Newton’s acclaimed Principia Mathematica, also known as PM, set out to simplify mathematical expression by setting the exact number of axioms (true statements) needed to define a proof and address Russell’s paradox which states, “Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. If R is not a member of itself, then its definition dictates that it must contain itself, and if it contains itself, then it contradicts its own definition as the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. A few years later, mathematician Godel pointed out some flaws in PM by stating no recursive extension of PM could be both complete and consistent for arithmetic statements and that within every powerful recursive logical system, such as PM, there exists a statement G that essentially reads “the statement G cannot be proven,” which basically puts us back in the same boat the liar paradox puts us in — if G can be proven, then the statement is false and the system is inconsistent but if G cannot be proven and the statement is true, then the system is incomplete. So basically, PM has some pretty fatal flaws.
I wonder what is the need to have a three volume work of math to prove something inherently paradoxical simply for the sake of science, technology, and advancement other than for the purposes of fulfilling a mutually agreed upon narrative that science and logic is the way “forward.” Astrology is often mocked for the myriad of teenage girls using star signs to determine compatibility and weekly horoscopes. However, the roots of astrology in the medieval Middle East are ultimately what led to the scientific study of space and astrophysics. Indian Ayurvedic medicine has been proven to alleviate symptoms of multiple ailments, and native tribal practices from all over the world cite meditational practices, knowledge of pressure points, and appreciating nature as essential for mental health—which are all being corroborated now too.
Snevets has a problem in encouraging only certain questions to be asked in order to propagate some corporate, mass media driven delusion that science only exists because of human greed. Science is an ever changing, ever illogical method of convincing people of different realities to achieve artificial success for the top 1% of the population. There’s no need to cry about how the plum pudding model of the atom was replaced by Rutherford’s model, was replaced by Bohr’s model, was replaced by the quantum mechanical model all to end up exactly at the point that many ancient religions made in the context of metaphysics made eons ago—and they didn’t need any fancy scientific method to get there (nor were they equipped with any of the same “modern” tools scientists have now). Clearly, the human race is living life with a constrained and narrow-minded mentality, and Snevets is doing its part in perpetuating it.
Be First to Comment