John 6IX Breezy Wrote:Individuals who look down on psychology, typically do so because they are uncomfortable with the variability and complexity that the world naturally has, and prefer the stable and predictable environments of a physics lab.But, see, exactly because human psychology is complex and variable... the scientific method is way less reliable for human psychology than it is for physics. And what psychology says doesn't have the same weight as what the physics says. Similarly, when making political decisions, we cannot take what economists say about economics to be nearly as certain as what physicists have to say about physics. Furthermore, economists, unlike physicists, agree on very few things about their field.
Sal Wrote:The problem with any axiom of any caliber is of this incompleteness in our knowledge, such that we can even reach conclusions that expand the pool of axioms or revise them.
Of course there are some things in mathematics we are not certain about. Not all mathematicians agree about the Axiom of Choice, because Banach-Tarski Paradox (which follows from the Axiom of Choice) makes many mathematicians uncomfortable. And, yes, some things which seemed obvious in mathematics turned out to be false. Like you said, in antiquity, it seemed obvious the only consistent geometry is one that assumes the Euclid's Fifth Postulate, and that the Fifth Postulate probably follows from the first four. Later, it seemed that the Fifth Postulate is independent of the first four postulates, but that it's obviously true in our universe. Later, it turned out that was not the case.
But, see, physics can only be true if mathematics it's based on is, so physics is inherently less certain than mathematics is. And, since all other sciences are based directly or indirectly on physics, they are more likely to be wrong than physics is. And so on...
