From: q2tj@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: thinking that numbers are God(tm)
Organization: Cornell University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:19:50 GMT

cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes: 

> [Anne Schaef] discusses groupings of various people on the basis of how
> they regard mathematics; in my experience I have found these groups as
> she has stated them to be extremely accurate.  The first group is people
> who say that they can't do math; they have a tendency to distrust
> numbers and not consider them as reality.  The second group is composed
> of mostly people who can calculate when they need to; in this group she
> puts most social scientists, engineers, and grade school teachers among
> others.  This group says that "numbers are just a tool," but in HER
> experience as a therapist, they don't really believe it.  They actually
> do think that numbers are some sort of objective reality, and they tend
> to worship them.  The third group is some artists and musicians, as well
> as hard scientists and mathematicians.  These people come full circle in
> not investing numbers with any hard reality; they do not reify mere
> numbers.
>
	I noticed that the people in the three different categories
have been slightly changed from what Schaef wrote in her book
"Women's Realities"  I recall that she made no mention of the
"hard sciences"  Rather, she put "applied scientists" in category
#2, along with the engineers, accountants, etc.  and put
"theoretical scientists" and "mathematicians" in category #3.
I would hope that she had the wherewithal to consider experimental
scientists to be in category #2.  (I have no idea if she meant to include
experimental scientists to be a subset of applied scientists).

	In my experience, I wouldn't put hard scientists in category
#3, no matter whether they were in biology, chemistry or physics
(experimental, or theoretical).  All these sorts of folks, *including*
physicists, are just as likely or not as engineers to consider numbers
having an "objective reality"

	It was very good for Schaef to raise the issue about the
assumption that numbers have an objective reality (I'm sure
metamathematicians, and certain philosophers would just love this).
However, she made a fundamental error in her 3 categories.  It seems
she was under the impression that group #1 and #3 are quite similar
in their belief in the "unreality of numbers"  I think that the 
way groups 1 & 3 perceive this unreality is qualitatively very different.

I suspect that Schaef was buying into the old heirarchy (which I personally
do not believe at all) that quality of perception of ultimate reality
can be ranked in the following order: mathematics, physics, chemistry,
biology.  Also, people will use this same ranking in regards to which
field is "broader" or "more general"  Nothing could be further from
the truth. (but that's another story).  In any event, I suspect Schaef was
trying to say " See, the guys on the "highest" level of abstraction,
group #3 are quite like group #1 to give a misguided sense of solace to
those in group #1.

Also, I think there are very few people in group #3.  I think that  
*some* mathematicians may be in this category.  And then a sprinkling
from just about any field where the person is mathematically trained, but
has also made metamathematics and philosophy a hobby.  Also, a few
mathematically trained religous people will fall into #3.
Being theoretical, or experimental or applied probably won't be 
a large deciding factor as Schaef suggested.  [a soft criticism, as
this is a synthetic book, and not given to formal classification]

Steve Seidman
q2tj@vax5.cit.cornell.edu


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.