I once had a discussion with a PhD student in physics regarding potatoes, whether it was a vegetable or not. My opinion was that potatoes aren’t vegetables. I supported my argument through references to the scientific, the nutritional and the culinary definition. Although scientifically (botanically), the potato is a vegetable, its nutritional value is far different from what is commonly called a vegetable, so as its use in cooking. His opinion was that science called potato a vegetable, so a vegetable it must be. For a simple debate on whether the definition should rather be scientific or follow the common usage, similar to the Nix vs Hedden case, I was quite annoyed he would consider the scientific definition as the superior one, the only one that mattered.
I used to often encounter this kind of opinion in university : people who believed pure reason was the best and the only way to comprehend their surroundings, others and life in general. I had roommates claiming mathematics were superior to biology, I had acquaintances neglect their literature and languages classes to solely focus on sciences. I got used to hearing that anyone entering art school would never become a contributing member of society. It is true that no one ever taught us the limitations of science, not even epistemology. I guess they either didn’t care or thought that we should be the ones to figure it on our owns or that it was simply of no use to us.
So I sought out and found my own personal answer to the limitations of STEM fields and their philosophy.
I first had to figure out why mathematics existed and where it came from. An article discussing Koreshanity greatly helped me out. The Koreshan theory is that we all live within a hollow earth, that the sun above our heads and everything in space is contained in earth’s center. A new set of physics’ laws would have to be invented, regarding the propagation of light and how everything should shrink once it leaves the surface of earth. Today, this theory can easily be disproven through space observation, but two centuries ago, things were different. The reason to focus on a round-shaped earth is because it fitted what they saw at the time. Why makes things more complicated than what they are ? Why invent a different theory for light when the one they had works just fine ? « Simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones. » That is the principle of Occam’s razor, and the logic to make use of when doing research. As flat Earth theory may seem like the simplest solution at first, looking at Earth’s shadow on the moon, how gravity shapes round objects and how Earth is seen as round from space makes one conclude that spherical Earth is actually a less complex theory. A flat planet would simply induce too many unsolved questions.
Yet mathematics was born on a flawed principle. One of its core principles, around which every other theorem is built, is addition. Addition must be possible. Two entities, identical in every way, must be added to create a new entity, defined as the sum of the two initial ones. But as Bergson already mentioned, time does not obey this statement, and with the knowledge we have today of quantum physics and microscopy, we know nothing obeys this rule. Two truly identical apples do not exist. We just see them that way through our limited eyes. So we invented math to attempt to describe the world around us. It works for simple systems but as soon as too many variables are present, we must switch to physics and make massive approximations. We cannot describe and predict the outcome of chaotic systems, we just bend everything to fit it into imperfect models. Just something as simple as a three body system subjected to gravity cannot be solved. Another example is Leibniz’s dream was to convert language to math, so that philosophical questions could be solved through calculus. Turns out is it likely to never come true.
This argument leads me to believe that mathematics is a universal language, but only for humans, because it appeals to some deep and primal comprehension of our surroundings. Mathematics have limitations language and human perception do not have. Our thoughts are more than our eyes and pure reason.
These imperfections in science are partly why I wish there were more classes about general knowledge in engineering school.
This text is not a denial of what everything science has brought us and will still do for us, simply that it is an imperfect tool and should never, ever, rule our entire behavior and actions, including our use of potatoes.