Humanism.

I have never thought of math beyond numbers and theorems, assignments and exams. It always seemed to be a worthless discipline unless one was going into engineering, carpentry, architecture (or another related field). I always approached math as a necessity to graduate – nothing more. However Reuben Hersh made me question my perceptions regarding the discipline of math. His words, “Mathematics is neither physical nor mental, it's social. It's part of culture, it’s part of history, it's like law, like religion, like money, like all those very real things which are real only as part of collective human consciousness. Being part of society and culture, it's both internal and external. Internal to society and culture as a whole, external to the individual, who has to learn it from books and in school. That's what math is”, made me open my eyes. Math is social – of course it is, but I would have never thought of math in this way. Math is culture – of course, but again I would have never thought of math as cultural. Math is part of history – of course! Where would we be today without math? This morning at Tim Horton’s I would not have been about to get my tea without math. I would have never thought of math within a humanistic framework –but now that I have been introduced to the philosopher, it makes sense. Although, I will be honest – I am not quite as passionate about that belief as Hersh. I have disliked math for a long time – I am although slowly changing my jaded perception. I am glad you (and those you introduce us to) are changing my idea of mathematics because I would never want to inflict my negative attitudes upon a child. I want them to make their own decisions about math and not be influenced by my experiences.

One interesting part of Hercsh’s talk was about his friend at the University of New Mexico who said, “There are nine planets; there were nine planets before there were any people. That means there was the number nine, before we had any people.” But in the theme of humanism – can we really say there was “the number nine” if there was no people to have created the label “nine”. Can we have the number 9 if there was no one there to count it?

I don’t agree with the notion challenged in Hersh’s talk regarding Platonism: “ all mathematical objects, entities, or whatever, including the ones we haven't discovered yet and the ones we never will discover-all of have always existed. There's no change in the realm of mathematics. We discover things, so our knowledge increases, but the actual mathematical universe is completely static.” I feel this is far from possible. Can we truly contend, that those things no yet discovered ‘have always existed’? With our rapidly changing society and all the new technology advancements – how can we say that the mathematical universe is completely static, when everything is always changing and evolving? As humanity changes, does anything remain static?

Having read this article and its stance on humanism I feel more confident approaching mathematics with children. I believe children should be introduced to this concept and realize math isn’t just numbers and theorems but real life. Many of the math teachers I have had in the past, I feel subscribed to what Hesch calls Formalism – mathematics as nothing but calculations, applying no meaning to it. Many teachers approach math as having one right answer, one set of rules. However, children need real experiences with math and its components – as Hersh says, “The essential thing is interaction communication”- humanism.