>>11509414cathegory theory, though, has not been established. And it is, as I've said, my firm belief that it will be the foundation for whatever we will have in the near future.
Now, I can agree that modern maths don't put enough efforts in showing how they can be relevant. But I'd say other sciences are even worse. At least in math, if something is established, then it is "for real".
In other sciences, though, results that are proven aren't just useless; often, they're downright false. As someone pointed out above, most modern scientists don't have a grasp on the statistics that they rely so much on. And this goes back to trying to show how math is important: after all, the reason we trust statistics is because of the math behind it, that justifies how from a limited number of observations we can infere, within a reasonable doubt, if a result is true or not.
Now, this all goes back to basically one thing: academia is corrupt, as everything is. Yeah, really insightful and original. But that's what it is. Math, however, is much more difficult to be corrupted.
As you can probably tell, I'm currently studying math. I don't want to be a part of academia. I actually want to do something relevant. The reason why I study math is not just it's pure part, which, while interesting and beautiful, may not be "enough to feed mouths". But what I really value about studying maths is how it shapes your mind. How it forces you to be methodical. I think more people could use that.
