[cedex12]

Personal experience: I came to like mathematics by way of computer science: so first got an understanding and appreciation for discrete maths, logic, etc, and only later on analysis and “phyisics” related mathematics. It's hard to say exactly why, but I'd wager it's the following: discrete maths is easy to formalize and axiomatize for first year student, so you quickly get a grasp of the “rules of the game”: what axioms you're allowed to use, how an argument works, etc. On the contrary, when you learn first year analysis, you see all those theorems talking about this (intuitively very simple but) quite complex object – the reals – of which you don't know the axioms (say linearly ordered field something something). Thus, when you learn about the basics results, you're faced with a kind of two-faced problem: on the one hand, all the basic results are intuitively obvious, while on the other, you have no idea how to build a proof because you don't know what facts you can safely use.

I don't really know how to phrase all that, but discarding the CS/axiomatic side of maths while praising the intuitive physics-inspired one is not the right approach imo.