The question I have chosen is related to the passage on page 73 of, The Scientific Revolution, by Lawerence M. Principe. On this page it states “The technique of reducing the physical world into mathematical abstractions… played a key role in producing a new physics and stands, as a distinctive feature of the Scientific Revolution ( Principe, P. 73).
Personally, I do not believe this should be the ultimate distinguishing factor between Humanities and Science. I say that because it seem to be the same end goal to me. Something new is accomplished, this happens in both science and humanities. The purpose of humanities that I have reached is looking at many different human perspective in hope to better understand humanity. With this being said, we use analysis f people, and perspectives to understand their place, role, and perceptive in our world, to better understand. From this excerpt, I am understanding it as the role f math t0 understand things within science is considered the point of difference, when in reality math is how they are analyzing, to find a new definition and type. This is the same within humanities, we are always trying to understand definitions of things to find an overarching one. For example, our entire discussions on being human, who is considered a human? Who decides who is human? And who determines the ultimate definition?
I believe this same analysis can also take place within science, although it is a different type of analysis, I believe it is still the same as it is analysis with the same goal, to understand.
My question is based upon this idea of variety, Variety has been very adamant topic throughout our courses of humanities so far, and a question that keeps popping into my head is, Does variety diminish the meaning of something?