/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10023460]

Every cent, second of computational time, square inch of classroom, etc, dedicated to pure math should be repurposed for whatever other area that has any relevance whatsoever for society at large.

To save you some time, lets go over the main counter-arguments.

>Muh beautiful rigor and demonstrations.
You can always gather outside and draw circles in the sand with your friends while someone else finds the next cure for a disease or a key material or technology.

>Muh old theorems who are called useless but allow for development of technology 80 years later.

With a lot of effort you might cherry pick 10 or so examples of this, and yet this still leaves most of pure math research and results having the same level of impact as dance theory. Trying to generalize from those few examples to the whole area is nonsense.

>Muh you're too dumb to understand this.
You're literally the only area of knowledge that might get something so arcane and convoluted in which a work requires years to be reviewed. A work, might I remind you, that has zero impact on our reality besides giving other pure math researchers more material to mentally masturbate on.

>Muh "I admit some, or maybe most of pure math might never have any use, but we should still do it.

Now you are closer to intellectual honesty. But please just explain to me how investing anything in pure math is not one of the biggest scams in academia.

[Anonymous No.10023463]

>>10023460
Yeah let's ditch art and musik and fiction writing. Let's live in steel cubes and all work on things that contribute to society.

I don't even disagree with you, but I can't agree with your points either.

[Anonymous No.10023471]

>>10023460
The mathematical framework for quantum mechanics which is a key component of much of physics and therefore a whole host of applications including medical equipment was invented long before any physicist came up with the idea. If left to their own devices they would be hard pressed to come up with this on their own, especially since any math they do is heavily inspired by mathematicians throughout their entire life.

[Anonymous No.10023473]

>>10023463

I believe art receives as much investment as it does because it has an extremely deep impact in society, don't you think so? See how you described lie as meaningless and colorless and emotionless without the presence of art?

Try to do the same with pure math.

>>10023471

See the second greentext.

[Anonymous No.10023499]

>>10023473
>I believe art receives as much investment as it does because it has an extremely deep impact in society, don't you think so?
The only art that has any impact at all to society is commercially designed pop stuff that pays back way more money than is invested in it, and it gets axed the instant it stops paying regardless of whether it's "impactful to society".
Funded art of any kind is something that appeals to a very small niche of people.

[Anonymous No.10023503]

>>10023460
Why does that make it a scam?

[Anonymous No.10023512]

>>10023460
Except pure math is the applied math of the future.

[Anonymous No.10023888]

>>10023460
>hurr durr im an idiot who got a C in my undergrad analysis class despite getting As in the calc series
>m-math must be the problem!!! Not me!!!
Admit it, you're green with envy.

[Anonymous No.10023894]

>>10023460
Imagine being so c ucked that you can't enjoy something unless it benefits the retarded masses lmao.

[Anonymous No.10024032]

>>10023888
See third greentext.

>>10023894
>Science is about enjoyment bro I saw that on Big Bang Theory! Bazzinga!

[Anonymous No.10024038]

>>10023460
imagine being this much of an asshurt engineer

[Anonymous No.10024045]

>>10024032
Math is not a science you fucking mongoloid.

[Anonymous No.10024060]

>>10023460
it's better then building another atomic bomb

[Anonymous No.10024093]

Sickening how the very spergs who defend the hyperautistic puzzle solving club will denounce philosophy on the exact same grounds.

[Anonymous No.10024115]

>>10024093
But all true math chads are philosophy connoisseurs, only reddit-tier physics undergrads hate philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10024145]

>>10023460
All of the resources spent on pure mathematics should be spent on preventing superintelligent AI from destroying the world.

[Anonymous No.10024207]

Your whole argument rests in the importance of a field being completely determined by the impact it has on society, which is wrong. But let us pretend that it isn't, even then, saying pure math is has none is a blatant lie.
>hurr durr second point
That's another lie. Do tell me where you got your numbers showing 90% of math has no applications. Then take a look around you and tell me that even if 99% of math was useless, the advancements the remaining 1% brought us are not enough to keep it around. Like, for example, uhm, the entire field of CS. Also, third point is hilarious, OP.
>you're too dumb to understand
>well it's hard even for you guys!
Glad you admit your post is just you throwing a hissy fit.

[Anonymous No.10024293]

>>10024093
at least the hyperautistic puzzle solving club maintains a level of rigor and objectivity in research. philosophy is 90% undisciplined, incoherent shit flinging.

[Anonymous No.10024298]

>>10024032
I read the third greentext. It only defends my point, that you find such matters to be "arcane." Most math is tautological and trivial, so anyone with even a slight affinity for problem solving does not experience this as a negative.

[Anonymous No.10024312]

>>10024293
>muh rigor mortis
I know you're a stickler for (arbitrary) rules but your ability to reason outside of symbolic formal systems is usually underdeveloped.

[Anonymous No.10024331]

>>10024293
Both math and multiple branches of philosophy are rigorous respect to their axioms, it's dumb to say that math maintains a superior level of objectivity when the entire knowledge is supported on assumptions like the law of non-contradiction.

[Anonymous No.10024337]

>>10024312
Mathematics is literally the study of symbolic formal systems, so why would that be a problem? Not a mathematician btw. What's your level of education, out of curiosity?

[Anonymous No.10024338]

>>10024337
College drop out but trolling savant :)

[Anonymous No.10024339]

>>10024331
The axioms are arbitrary, yes; but whether or not a principle is consistence with the given axioms is entirely objective.

[Anonymous No.10024345]

>>10024339
Yeah, it's the same case with philosophy. Both philosophy and math (which is literally a branch of logic) use arbitrary axioms to prove or disprove principles.
Stop pretending that math is more rigorous than philosophy only because it uses muh numbers.

[Anonymous No.10024346]

>>10024339
Ironically the formal school of philosophy that attempts to emulate math tends to be the most sterile, empty and useless

[Anonymous No.10024356]

Oy vey, the engineers know

[Anonymous No.10024397]

>>10024356
OP is a literal retard.
t. engineer

[Anonymous No.10024402]

>>10024207
>Like, for example, uhm, the entire field of CS
>Uhmmm, sweetie, darling.

>There was that one time where Turing did pure abstract math and it magically became computers!

>If this happened once, this must be true for every other one of those pure abstract math results that are completely useless right now!

>The highest impact factor for a math journal is less than 2 because we are misunderstood geniuses, not because 99% of our output is literally irrelevant to every area of knowledge besides very specific niches and maybe only one or two papers per century affect other areas.

By your reasoning we should probably be investing massive amounts in linguistics and philosophy departments since most of science can't be done without the usage of language and basic methodical thinking?