[BeetleB]

> All the while, people will see a half-assed psychology study with a questionable procedure, weak at best, erroneous at worst statistics and therefore tenuous at best conclusions, and this study is taken to be "true"

...

> Yet when we're talking about extremely complicated topics that exist on the edge of the horizon of human intuition, no matter how obvious the impact some people just refuse to accept things as objective simply because they fail to intuitively understand them.

I think the intersection of these two groups is the null set.

> Foundational fields like mathematics and physics are as objective as we can get.

Objective? Yes. But objective does not equate to "true"[1]. One requires data, and the other lives only in the mind. It is not at all problematic to ponder over whether mathematics is "true" - most mathematicians have an opinion one way or another, and they are not unanimous in their opinions.

[1] True w.r.t reality, not true in the logic sense.

[hgsgm]

Quite the opposite. The majority of people I will believe some random bogus psych or nutrition study the news, while denying quantum mechanics results.

[SleekEagle]

I have no idea what "true" means if it does not mean "a quality of a statement as being an accurate description of objective reality". While mathematics itself may be a human invention, it clearly describes a fundamental truth as evidenced by its continued reliance in producing effective models that describe the measurable world, which must be taken as a reflection of objective reality. Again, you can feel free to deny this, but all you are left with is cogito ergo sum.

[BeetleB]

> While mathematics itself may be a human invention, it clearly describes a fundamental truth as evidenced by its continued reliance in producing effective models that describe the measurable world, which must be taken as a reflection of objective reality.

It often describes the fundamental truth, because much of its origins was for that purpose, not because all mathematics is fundamentally true.

There's plenty of mathematics that is not modeled by the measurable world - almost by design. Just pick a different set of axioms and you'll get mathematical truths that may conflict with reality.

According to many mathematicians, uncountable infinities don't exist, and they focus on doing math without relying on them. There goes the real number line. From a scientist's perspective, either they exist or they don't. Both cannot be true. From a mathematician's perspective, both are truths.

Similarly, either the Axiom of Choice is true or it isn't. Yet the bulk of mathematics is fine with or without it.