"Though in speculation, we may readily avow a certain criterion in science, and
deny it in sentiment, the matter is found in practice to be much
more hard to ascertain in the former case than in the latter.
Theories of abstract philosophy, systems of profound theology, have
prevailed during one age: In a successive period, these have been
universally exploded: Their absurdity has been detected: Other
theories and systems have supplied their place, which again gave
place to their successors: And nothing has been experienced more
liable to the revolutions of chance and fashion than these pretended
decisions of science. The case is not the same with the beauties of
eloquence and poetry. Just expressions of passion and nature are
sure, after a little time, to gain public applause, which they
maintain for ever. Aristotle, and Plato, and Epicurus, and
Descartes, may successively yield to each other: But Terence and
Virgil maintain an universal, undisputed empire over the minds of
men. The abstract philosophy of Cicero has lost its credit: The
vehemence of his oratory is still the object of our admiration."

David Hume, "The Standard of Taste" (1760).

.....................................................................

This observation, fairly obvious and inevitable when understood, is far, far from the normal way we think of things, at all. We hear in the Universities of the perfections of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, how it cannot be improved on, how our entire world is absolutely dependent on it. We hear how all progress is dependent on science, in an inevitable progress, based on the perfections of the scientific method, which, if it is not perfect, must be, by far, the finest instrument for creating systematic progress in our understanding and mastery of reality. We hear that the evidence for Einstein's theory of relativity is so overwhelming, that it cannot possibly be disproven, but, must merely be slightly modified, at most, for certain circumstances that Einstein and his successors were unaware of.

Whereof comes this massive discrepancy, between David Hume's rather self-evident observations about the ephemeral nature of all science and mathematics, and contemporary views of the absolute perfections and indestructability of modern science and mathematics? How can we possibly reconcile them?

I think, as is often the case in human affairs, we have recourse to psychology, and human motivation, in understanding this fundamental principle of human social behavior, as regards science, mathematics and the arts. While a great work of art may indeed have some influence on the minds of men over the decades and centuries, and many have, they are generally by no means essential for survival on a day to day basis. The works of art influence and mold over time, but are not existential in their necessity, the way the rules of science or religion may be. Has anyone died for failing to read a great work of art in time? Perhaps, but, it would require very special circumstances indeed! On the other hand, failing to follow the moral precepts of a religion, or the practical laws of physics, could precipitate almost anyone into a very early death, almost under any circumstances. As a result, there is a strong social tendency to take the rules of abstract philosophy much more seriously than anything in the arts.

However, if this be the case, how can we possibly explain the endurance of art, but the intensely ephemeral nature of the rules of science and mathematics. If something is essential to our survival, how can it simultaneously be so easily discarded as absurd? This is a true paradox. It is revolved by understanding that there are wheels within wheels, that our self-evident and essential observations only apply because of prejudice, and failing to see a broader picture. For example, what could be more existential and essential than victory in war? Yes, we all know the uncertainties of war. Anatole France observes that "all armies are the best in the world. If not, it would be impossible for them to exist at all." This statement is ridiculous, but profoundly accurate at the same time. It is so essential for us to believe that our army is invincible, simply to function as a society, that we must believe that it is. And every nation in the world is exactly the same way.

Similarly, we must believe that 2 + 2 = 4. This cannot be denied, it is essential to our entire existence to believe this. Anyone who believes otherwise must be insane. It is basic arithmetic, it must be true, or our entire system of knowledge collapses, and with this, what are we, but mindless dust blowing in the wind?