Some other reasons why mathematics was crippled on Safehold?

From:

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.c ... 7i3Yq7TNFQ

Previously, when we considered the psychological profile of pseudoscientists, we wondered if there wasn't an alternative checklist to the one we use for detecting junk science, but one that if followed, would lead to the opposite of junk science.

It occurred to us that there just might be and that it might be found in Jeremy Kun's "Habits of highly mathematical people"! Here's his story of how it came about as a response to a very common question heard by math teachers everywhere, along with the basic list.

It wasn't mentioned, but is likely that any formal logic was also crippled on purpose

Most of the "higher" sciences involve complex mathematics to some degree.

We don't know *exactly* what math was taught, but doing things like sines, cosines, tangents, and calculus is going to be tough using Roman numerals. Not impossible, just much more difficult.

For simpler things, yes, there are workarounds. One doesn't need trig to build bridges; even though it's often easier to be able to just calculate things rather than building by Mark I eyeball.

Logic is a bit more difficult to "cripple"; since it's usually based on empirical observation. A begets B and B begets C, thus A begets C isn't all that hard to come up with, once you've seen the cycle occur a few times.

OrlandoNative wrote:
Logic is a bit more difficult to "cripple"; since it's usually based on empirical observation.

I think you're underestimating the 'crippling' effect of providing 'miraculous' explanations for a lot of that empirical observation.

Formal logic depends on a premise; it's perfectly possible to construct a structure that's both logical and reasonable - but has a false conclusion because it's based on entirely the wrong premise.

If your premise is that the Archangels arranged gravity as a generous gift, it's going to be quite some time before it even occurs to you that it's possible to provide a reasonable explanation of how gravity works, or that you need to bother. If I'm remembering correctly, Merlin had to hand Newton's work over to Doctor Maklyn.

There'll be a similar effect for empirical observations of, say, scurvy. Not eating your bean sprouts on shipboard leads to scurvy? Yes, that's because you've broken Pascale's laws.

I think the real reason the Royal College took off in Charis is because the Brethren of St Zherneau were able to subtly encourage questions like 'Yes, but HOW did Pascale arrange for beansprouts to protect against Grimaldi's plague of scurvy?'

And really, once the arcangels hand over an abacas and a 13 knott rope, that's most of your basic engineering right there.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Bluesqueak wrote:I think the real reason the Royal College took off in Charis is because the Brethren of St Zherneau were able to subtly encourage questions like 'Yes, but HOW did Pascale arrange for beansprouts to protect against Grimaldi's plague of scurvy?'

I don't think it even requires that.

The Royal College began as a repository of existing information, like the sailing instructions collected from hundreds of Charisian merchant ship captains detailing precisely how they got from point A to point B. Having that information collected, indexed, and available in one place was of enormous value to the development of Charis, and the arson that destroyed it was a sore blow. It was a library more than an R&D institution.

Nothing the Royal College was doing even approached a violation of the Proscriptions, but the CoGA, and particularly Zhaspar Clyntahn, looked with deep suspicion on simple attempts to collect existing knowledge, let alone discover new things. And Hektor of Corisande did a good deal of politicking and spent more than a few marks in bribes to the Vicarate to fan the flames of that suspicion. He recognized the advantage it gave Charis, but felt it was dangerous to attempt to do likewise.

Before the Group of Four launched their attack to try to destroy Charis, the Royal College had been careful to distance itself from from the King and official support, and had been very circumspect about attempting to discover new knowledge, because they knew how that might be viewed. The whole notion of "innovation" was a dirty word on Safehold, because it would lead to sin and damnation.

Once Charis formally broke with Mother Church, and Cayleb said "That's enough. The Royal College will get new quarters in the palace complex, Dr. Macklyn and associates will live here where the Royal Guard can protect them, and the Crown will properly fund their efforts.", the lid came off the pot. The Royal College could formally try to develop new knowledge, and understand just how the Archangels had arranged the world and why doing this produced that result. They had always wanted to. Now they could do it openly with the Crown's support and approval.

The Brethren of St. Zhernau's effect on this was quite indirect. After all, they were an obscure, small monastery tucked away in a seedy part of Tellesburg, most folks in Charis weren't even aware they existed, and their principal influence was on members of the clergy. Having local clergy who didn't say "You can't do that!" was an aid, but not really a cause.
_______
Dennis

Well one reason is that "real" mathematicians end up doing the prestigious job of "Langhorne's Work" - compiling and maintaining complete baseball stats using only Roman numerals.

DMcCunney wrote:
<snip>.

The Brethren of St. Zhernau's effect on this was quite indirect. After all, they were an obscure, small monastery tucked away in a seedy part of Tellesburg, most folks in Charis weren't even aware they existed, and their principal influence was on members of the clergy. Having local clergy who didn't say "You can't do that!" was an aid, but not really a cause.
_______
Dennis

Dennis I'm not sure the Royal College was quite as timid as you suggest even pre-Merlin; more circumspect certainly.

The Brethern's main effect on the Royal College was that Harahld and most probably his father were aware of the Journals and their contents which almost certainly encouraged their support and funding for the Royal College.

Bluesqueak wrote:

OrlandoNative wrote:
Logic is a bit more difficult to "cripple"; since it's usually based on empirical observation.

I think you're underestimating the 'crippling' effect of providing 'miraculous' explanations for a lot of that empirical observation.

Formal logic depends on a premise; it's perfectly possible to construct a structure that's both logical and reasonable - but has a false conclusion because it's based on entirely the wrong premise.

If your premise is that the Archangels arranged gravity as a generous gift, it's going to be quite some time before it even occurs to you that it's possible to provide a reasonable explanation of how gravity works, or that you need to bother. If I'm remembering correctly, Merlin had to hand Newton's work over to Doctor Maklyn.

There'll be a similar effect for empirical observations of, say, scurvy. Not eating your bean sprouts on shipboard leads to scurvy? Yes, that's because you've broken Pascale's laws.

I think the real reason the Royal College took off in Charis is because the Brethren of St Zherneau were able to subtly encourage questions like 'Yes, but HOW did Pascale arrange for beansprouts to protect against Grimaldi's plague of scurvy?'

Not at all.

It really doesn't matter if one cites "miracles" as the basis, or something else, as long as it continues to happen whenever some basic criteria is met, folks are going to go by the A->B->C logical sequence. The only thing that would stop that is if, sometimes, it *doesn't* progress that way without any additional observable influences.

As for gravity, I wouldn't say we know *why* it works, even now. We know what to expect in different situations, and we've created theories to explain that behavior. Just not that it's "miraculous", but, realistically, all that's come from, basically, is observation. We could just as easily say, like those "creationists", that it works that way because God created the universe to work that way. To be honest, if we *truly* grasped all the workings of gravity, by now we ought to be able to manipulate it at will, rather than just "working around it" as we do now.

Let's face it; even with our theories of general and special relativity, we can't actually *manipulate* the cosmos; and, realistically, that's what we'd need to be able to do to actually *prove* any of those theories. All we can say is that *most* of the observations tend to follow what we'd expect based on the theoretical model, even though there are *some* observations that obviously needed the modifications made by quantum theory to do so.

In the end, of course, does it really matter? If one takes the tack that the universe was created to work the way it does, or thinks that it just came about by blind chance, the workings (and the logical progressions based on observed outcomes) remain the same. Only the origin of those "laws" is different.

Annachie wrote:And really, once the arcangels hand over an abacas and a 13 knott rope, that's most of your basic engineering right there.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

The arcangels didn't hand over an abacas. Remember, that was an introduction of Merlin's.

Can't say about the origin of any knotted ropes, however.

OrlandoNative wrote:Most of the "higher" sciences involve complex mathematics to some degree.

We don't know *exactly* what math was taught, but doing things like sines, cosines, tangents, and calculus is going to be tough using Roman numerals. Not impossible, just much more difficult.

For simpler things, yes, there are workarounds. One doesn't need trig to build bridges; even though it's often easier to be able to just calculate things rather than building by Mark I eyeball.

Logic is a bit more difficult to "cripple"; since it's usually based on empirical observation. A begets B and B begets C, thus A begets C isn't all that hard to come up with, once you've seen the cycle occur a few times.

A science involves being able to repeat an experiment and get the same result, within experimental error. If you can't do that, it ain't a science. Also, your point about mathematics is well taken.

I must emphasise that I am not denigrating other fields of study, some of which are every whit as difficult and as valuable as sciences.

(As an aside, it's been said by some cynics that if something has "science" in the name, it probably isn't.)
.