I have been struggling with this idea for a while: that, for some reason, of the empirical fields, including math, physics, engineering, computer science, and economics (into which I include the social sciences), it appears that platonism seems to originate in philosophical spiritualism, gain legitimacy in mathematics and roll downhill until it is cleansed by computer scientists and engineers.
What’s interesting to me, is that it just seems, in all the fields, that platonism is the definition of most philosophy, so pervasive in math, to the point of being endemic and inescapable and impervious to correction, even if it doesn’t need to be.
…Human Beings As They Dream…
…………..Philosophy…………………….
………………Logic…………………………
……………–Math–……………………..
……..Physical…….Behavioral………….
..(constant vs inconstant relations)…
…….Physics………Economics………….
………….(observation)…………………..
Engineering—Computer Science…..
………….(interaction)…………………….
…Human Beings As They Really Act..
It’s just strange that the only empirical people you seem to be able to trust are people who work with machines. ‘Cause they can tell the difference between an abstract name for something and the operational process for bringing it into being. Computer scientists never make this mistake. Mathematicians do all the time, and actually defend what they do not themselves understand.
I have heard a lot of criticism of engineers and computer scientists over the past few decades and I’ve just found that sure, in any discipline there are idiots. There are ‘scientistic’ physicists too, and ‘financial economists’. But the difference between fields is the use of operational language, and operational language isn’t platonic.
That’s what makes ‘science’ into ‘science’.
– OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE = HUMAN ACTION.
Human action that is open to sympathetic testing – experience.
Praxeology was backwards.
You can sympathetically test something.
You cant deduce much from that tho.