Science and Logics are subjective: Mathematics is only the objective science!

Einstein and the modern physicists amended this formula into
E=MC^2
, which is the main stream theorem.

The old Newtonian model, E=MC, had never tested to assess whether it fit in with how actually the geometry worked in the real world. This formula was based on a pure assumption.

However, all natural science models, except those based on statistic modelling method, are problematic and highly subjective as same as logic.

The mathematical model is useful and costless, however all the signs and the sensitivities in the formulae are just assumed rather than produced especially in the old days when the computer technology and the statistic theories were not developed enough.

The reason why natural science is subjective as same as logic is as follows.

As a matter of fact, the results determine the theories rather than the theories determine the result in natural science. All scientists create their theories by finding the result to model them. However, many scientists always think that their theories contribute to find the results, and their thought is a completely false belief and merely a propaganda to make mass believe they are the authority.

Einsteinian and modern scientists' amendment of Newtonian science is the typical example. As these modern scientists examined how the geometry worked in the real world, they finally found out that the energy was not linear as what Newtonian scientists assumed; and then they changed the formulae.

Furthermore, these scientists claim their theories produce the mathematical models. Nonetheless, this is also the false assumption. They create mathematical formulae which "look like" as though they fit in with what the variables move. But, these formulae hardly become perfectly fitting with what the variables move in the real world because there is always an error (a residual in their formulae). The formulae may be valid if the error correction model proves the error tends to be corrected.

Nevertheless, this does not encourage to believe the theories produce the mathematical models: It is more likely that the mathematical models find the most appropriate theories. For example, in electro-magnetics, a physicist tried to make a mathematical modelling which models the movement of electro-magnetic by using various variables this physicist thought needed. However, the model did not fit in with what the movement is actually is. There is only another variable in the formula was needed, but this physicist did not know what this unknow variable was then. The task for this physicist then became to find this additional unknown variable. Then, this physicist finally found it, and tried the scientific experiment by referring to the new formula!

As Immanuel Kant, the famous German philosopher, said mathematics could be the only science which is objective.

Only the sets of "a priori", the objective measure verifying the knowledge emphasised is absolute, in the physical world (which is what I also called "the real world" in this article) are latitude, longitude, altitude, time, and immediate feelings. The other physical knowledge, in past, present, and future, only comes from the bias induced by subjective feelings and "expected" outcomes.

Logic does not have an objective measure to self-contradict to proof this makes sense unlike Mathematics which has a strong objective measure called "Axiom".

Scientific knowledge based on assumption offered by scientific logic is therefore not objective and highly subjective because it is awfully biased by the subjective assumptions.

If formulae and their variables, signs, and sensitivities are found by statistically analysing the data sets found in a survey or experiments in our real world, these formulae are at least verifying to be based on a priori of the physical world, latitude, longitude, altitude, time, and immediate feelings, and the mathematical world, axiom. Therefore, they are more likely to be objective.

Statistical models are useful to make semi-objective formulae because they can be proved and self-contradicted by "a priori" unlike the formulae and their variable, signs, and sensitivities are based on assumption based on pure logic.



* The following quote is based on what John Locke, the British philosopher called the father or liberalism, Immanuel Kant, one of the most influential modern German philosopher, and one of my mathematics teachers in one of the universities I graduated from stated:

... I believe in God; God is a fundamental axiom of our world; mathematics is based on axiom; both axioms, God and mathematical axiom, are "a priori", the objective measure verifying the knowledge emphasised is absolute; Mathematics assesses axiom; God and mathematical axiom are absolute; Mathematics has a power to assess something equivalent to God, the absolute being; The existence of God could be inferred by mathematics as John Locke stated in "An essay concerning human understanding"; As my Mathe teacher said God may admire Mathematics then; As my Mathe teacher said, Mathematics is equivalent to or more powerful than God; Therefore, I admire and believe in Mathematics, based on axiom, and Statistics, based on both mathematics and "a priori" of the physical world which may be called as God, as the only objective science!