Talk:Foundational crisis of mathematics

i love maths

Foundations problems in mathematics should be sustained
It is probably correct to say that in mainstream mathematics, or among active thinkers relating to the fields of mathematics, symbolic logic, computer science and the like, there has never been full consensus on the depth of the extent to which the foundations of mathematics have a problem or not. For this reason alone -- to honor pluralism -- I vote for sustaining a section called 'foundations problems in mathematics' rather than portray that there is a totality of agreement that there aren't such problems. Confer also Encyclopedica Britannica in its 1990s edition (and possibly later) where there is a long and involved article on the issue.

I agree, this section (Foundation Problems in Mathematics) is important
The exploration into what science is, is part of a greater discourse in humanity about what anything is at all. The role of formalisms in science, including mathematics, evokes and spurs new forms of thinking, art, dance, music, movies, computer programming and what not. That there are deep and powerful -- and hugely interesting! -- unresolved questions in mathematics is a thing which implies the honesty of human thinking.

The section on Foundation problems in mathematics shows that mathematics is not a sect, it is not about fanatism, it is not about belief, it is not secterian, it is not a religion: it is an honoring of such trends of thoughts as Sextus Empiricus dedicated himself to: sceptisism, as a sense of wonder, a looking about, without fundamentalist certainty but willingness to discover, and discover also truth.

So this section should not at all be closed down. It should be vastly expanded!

And I am sure it should be crosslinked with such resonant themes as foundational problems in physics. Aristo Tacoma, Sydney, 2006
 * I really don't see what distinction you're making between a foundations problem in mathematics, and just plain foundations of mathematics. There's plenty of opportunity in foundations of mathematics to discuss aspects of various foundational approaches that people find problematic. Moreover the current "problem" article has almost no content (and what there is is POV); those problems could be fixed, but I see no reason the resulting content doesn't belong in a section of foundations of mathematics. --Trovatore 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I looked back in the history to the original article, and it was much clearer what it was talking about. So I reverted to that version, with a couple minor edits for clarity, and to avoid having the article make the claim that cognitive science has succeeded in giving mathematics an empirical basis. --Trovatore 02:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If not merge
Then all the stuff about quasi-empricism and cognitive science should be in one but not both articles.

--M a s 18:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)