↖ Homepage of the site 'What to do with your life?'
      

Build the human sciences in the same way as mathematics

Let us clarify from the outset that this is not about using mathematical fields, for example statistics, within the human sciences.Rather, it is about building the human sciences on the same foundation as mathematics, namely logic (as formalized in predicate logic).

For now, the functioning of the human sciences is as follows:A person proposes a new explanatory hypothesis, supported by more or less solid facts. This is followed by a controversy, which ends either in a consensus of approval or rejection, or in the fragmentation of the field into different schools.

In contrast, mathematics is based on the formulation of a few axioms, followed by the development of consequences, respecting the rules of logic. What underpins the whole is that the countless developments do not produce major contradictions.

Our primary axiom has been what a human being is. Its exposition constitutes the core of the first part of the book From Capital to Reason. C'est le fait d'avoir compris ce qu'est un humain, et constaté que ce n'était pas quelque chose de bien connu, qui nous a motivé à écrire le livre Du capital à la raison. Cependant, contrairement aux mathématiques où les axiomes ne sont soutenu que par les développements sans contradictions qu'ils permettent, comme en physique, notre axiome est guidé par des constatations expérimentales.

Then, we sought to derive the consequences, to gradually expand our solid field of knowledge, exactly as is done in mathematics.

Tout d'abord dans le domaine de la politique, cela nous à conduit à la fin de cette première partie du livre Du capital à la raison, à formuler le fait qu'un bon système politique doit nécessairement encadrer le processus de décision, alors que tous les débats tournent autour de définir ou redéfinir comment choisir qui gouverne.
The second part of the book proposes a political system built on this foundation, through the concept of strategic voting.

We then began to apply the same method to philosophy. In this sense, we responded to the critique from Jean-François Revel, who pointed out that philosophy had fallen into an impasse after Kant, with increasingly esoteric and disconnected concepts from reality. For example, structuralism in the 20th century sought to formulate explanatory hypotheses in a form that seemed more scientific, but the subsequent approach—controversy, consensus, schools—remained the same. The presentation was therefore questioned, not the substance of the method.De notre coté, se sont dessinés la prise en compte des faits comme critère moral principal, la notion d'adulte capable d'affronter le groupe comme point le plus difficile, et la recherche de minimalité comme contepartie indispensable du progrès technologique. Mais surtout, tirer progressivement l'ensemble des conséquences de la nature humaine a conduit à mettre en avant la résolution de problèmes comme optimum non intuitif du fonctionnement social humain, qui doit donc être cultivé par l'éducation.

Psychology followed, since the link with philosophy, itself connected to politics, allows us to no longer filter the innumerable therapeutic methods solely based on 'the method produces for the individual a result superior to the placebo effect,' which does not exclude conditioning biases (fabricating at all costs an individual conforming to social expectations) or irresponsibility (fabricating an individual who ultimately functions at the expense of others).This led to the choice of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and the proposal of the personality classification 'Tell me how you make decisions, and I will tell you who you are'.

Finally, the field ofeducation could be reliably addressed, whereas if we had tried to tackle it from the beginning, we would likely have ended up formulating a new series of prejudices corresponding to current trends. What guided us here is the concept of responsibility in the sense of Kant.

A few final remarks.

Again, as in mathematics, the final validation comes from the coherence of the whole, and more precisely, from the absence of glaring contradictions. For example, in psychology, we were led to hypothesize the dual nature of the human mind, in order for things to fit together, even before discovering the scientific article by Keith E. Stanovich proposing such a model.This brings us back to the problem formulated by Alexander Grothendieck in the 1970s, namely the hyper-specialization of science that makes it impossible to address global issues that significantly affect our lives. Today, we tend to believe we have answered this through the notion of interdisciplinarity, but it does not work well... because of human nature: in an interdisciplinary or more broadly, a collaborative conference or work, arbitration ultimately falls more to diplomacy than to scientific rigor.

As early as the 1970s, the mathematician Alexander Grothendieck asked the right questions in Are We to Continue Scientific Research?. Moreover, his mathematical developments show that he could have followed the chains of consequences even better than us. What he lacked was the starting axiom of what a human being is.

On our part, it was only *a posteriori*, when the website 'What to Do With Your Life?' was complete and when we noticed its originality, that we became aware of the method that had guided its construction.To this point, note that the form of a website with many hyperlinks, in contrast to linear content like a book, was very useful for us: the links allow us to give precise meaning to the terms we use, by referring to the articles that detail them.

Pour terminer, rendons hommage au Lean, développé au Japon dans la seconde moitié du XXᵉ siècle, qui a trouvé le début des bonnes solutions (la résolution de problèmes). Cependant, faute de comprendre précisément ce qu'est un être humain, les conséquences dans les autres domaines n'avaient pas été trouvées.