I’ve always liked Geometry. It’s fundamental in nature; it’s a matter of finding whether or not the premises are parallel to the conclusions. The cumbersome part lies largely on the comprehension of the postulates and theorems to be utilized in the process. Nevertheless, it never ceases to amaze me how distinct means of going through a problem coincide and form a single answer and how things invariably go back to the basics, regardless of the complication it has accumulated. But even then, I’ve wondered why it was imperative to fill up a two-column proof about items which are apparently true, just to validate its legitimacy.
What’s with man’s obsession with finding evidences to support the observations acquired through sensory perception? Why is it that proofs are a prerequisite to acceptance? Why is there still a need for confirmation despite all indicators pointing to a particular conclusion? Why are we second-guessing our guts and intuition?
I guess it just goes to show that we don’t want to stand by something whose existence is questionable in itself. We don’t want to jeopardize our credibility by believing in something that has yet to be established. We don’t want to defend something and risk looking like fools after being proven wrong.
But what’s not to like about a little reassurance every once in a while?