Sep 28th 2011, 2:48:27
I don't have much of an opinion on math, or you for that matter. It is useful, and it certainly serves an important purpose in this world, but I don't believe it guarantees objectivity in those who practice it by any means. Personal biases come into play in any vocation, and regardless of training one's ability to be objective is (at least in my own opinion and experience) more inherent than learned. Studying a particular art or science may teach you tricks to use that inherent quality one way or another, but I don't believe that it makes you better at it than someone who has learned similar tricks in a different context.
I also never said you thought you were better than others, just better at something than others for a reason that I disagree with the legitimacy of.
Let me throw out an alternative point of view for you, which I'm guessing you haven't considered when contemplating the objectivity of folks in other professions outside of mathematics....
In mathematics, objectivity isn't complicated by emotion and personal biases. Numbers are numbers, and they either add up or they don't. This is obviously a grossly simplified example, but 2+2 will always equal 4, regardless of your feelings towards the steps to reaching that conclusion. So in that vein, you are correct that mathematics is a more objective discipline/science overall. My point in the matter is that I don't believe this in and of itself guarantees objectivity from any particular practitioner.
However, in law enforcement, or legal practice, or even working as a judge, not only does one have to remain logical and objective (or at least attempt to) for the sake of the system, one has to put aside that inherent emotional response to the subject matter, and do so in a system that is built upon subjective principles which are (attempted to be) enforced in an objective matter.
In my personal opinion, and nothing but, it is much more difficult for an officer, or a judge, or a lawyer to remain objective when suppressing those emotions than it is for a mathematician to remain objective about numbers and procedures that are inherently objective, but all of them strive for objectivity none the less.
I have known mathematicians who were bat fluff crazy, and some that were incredibly intelligent. The same goes for judges, lawyers, judicial experts, police officers, and criminal justice majors. With this in mind, I simply can't agree that mathematicians are naturally more objective than any other professional trade.
Perhaps you are personally more objective than others, and if so I congratulate you, and thank you for some enjoyable conversation on the matter. I just can't believe that every one of your colleagues can obtain a superior level of objectivity just because of their trade.
I also never said you thought you were better than others, just better at something than others for a reason that I disagree with the legitimacy of.
Let me throw out an alternative point of view for you, which I'm guessing you haven't considered when contemplating the objectivity of folks in other professions outside of mathematics....
In mathematics, objectivity isn't complicated by emotion and personal biases. Numbers are numbers, and they either add up or they don't. This is obviously a grossly simplified example, but 2+2 will always equal 4, regardless of your feelings towards the steps to reaching that conclusion. So in that vein, you are correct that mathematics is a more objective discipline/science overall. My point in the matter is that I don't believe this in and of itself guarantees objectivity from any particular practitioner.
However, in law enforcement, or legal practice, or even working as a judge, not only does one have to remain logical and objective (or at least attempt to) for the sake of the system, one has to put aside that inherent emotional response to the subject matter, and do so in a system that is built upon subjective principles which are (attempted to be) enforced in an objective matter.
In my personal opinion, and nothing but, it is much more difficult for an officer, or a judge, or a lawyer to remain objective when suppressing those emotions than it is for a mathematician to remain objective about numbers and procedures that are inherently objective, but all of them strive for objectivity none the less.
I have known mathematicians who were bat fluff crazy, and some that were incredibly intelligent. The same goes for judges, lawyers, judicial experts, police officers, and criminal justice majors. With this in mind, I simply can't agree that mathematicians are naturally more objective than any other professional trade.
Perhaps you are personally more objective than others, and if so I congratulate you, and thank you for some enjoyable conversation on the matter. I just can't believe that every one of your colleagues can obtain a superior level of objectivity just because of their trade.
