A written piece of this blogger's work was archived in hardcopy; here is an abstract recollection of his musings:
Raymond Smullyan, a Mathematician, Philosopher and author of several outstanding books of logical puzzles, tells, in one of his books, a revealing story. A friend invited him for dinner. He told Smullyan that his teenage son was crazy about Smullyan's books and could not wait to meet him. The friend warned Smullyan not to mention that he is a Mathematician and that Logic is a part of Mathematics because the young fellow hated Mathematics.
A person abhors reading in general may be suspected of lacking in intelligence, but otherwise, in the absence of further personal data, would likely be judged "normal." A rare person would dislike music as opposed to the one who dislikes a particular kind of music (classic, chamber, pop, country, etc). You would probably be surprised to meet a fellow who feels indiscriminately dizzy at the sight of a painting. Why then has it become an acceptable norm to confess a dislike and misunderstanding of Mathematics as a whole?
If you are a mathematician you surely know what I mean. If you are not, pretend you are, and next time when making a new acquaintance suggest as much. Chances of a response in the spirit of "Oh, really. I have always had problems with math," or "Math was the most difficult subject I ever..." are overwhelming. Somehow I feel that a biologist would not hear (at least not too often) complaints about biology, an a chemist about chemistry. I am sure of this because the term "math anxiety" has gained a respected position in our vocabulary long ago which may only compare to the position afforded to a more recent "computer illiteracy." But whoever heard or confessed of "biological anxiety" or "chemical illiteracy"?
Two attributes (real or perceived) of Mathematics place it apart from other subject and sciences. Mathematics is the only deductive science, and Mathematics is pervasive. It is pervasive and fundamental in the sense that more human activities require at least some math skills than is true of any other field of knowledge. I believe this to be a standard perception. Why is it then that so many people (after having troubles with math in school and learning very little or next to nothing) live their lives happily without missing Mathematics in the least?
The answer is simple. You cannot build an engine without good knowledge of Calculus. Still you can drive a car without any understanding of the internal workings of the engine; much less of the mathematics needed to design or build one. In pragmatic terms, we need mathematics very rarely, and, when we do, the mathematics we need is mostly trivial. Coutning the change in a supermarket, mortgage cost, interest on a loan, the best time to start a driving trip, frequent flier mile count, and what else? However, thinking along those lines is a great simplification and injustice towards both Mathematics and the avarage person. I know for sure Mathematics may be beautiful. Judging Mathematics by its pragmatic value is like judging symphonia by the weight of its score.
What is a pragmatic value of music or literature? Yet would you rather do without either? Few among us attempt to or practice writing music. Most are just happy to be able to appreciate it. Appreciation of music enhances our lives. Likewise, the ability to appreciate Mathematics enhances the lives of those who possess it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment