No, not conclusions, that part is clear. Math seems to be correct, I have no problem with that, although it seems strange to be empirical at its root. Regardless, it has its applications, which must continue in that field.
The point being made was being rooted in beliefs, at its root, it is no wonder that a mathematician’s daily life is also rooted in beliefs. Not talking about inevitable, harmless beliefs like making an appointment and believing it can happen—which involves a lot of factors coming together—or boarding a plane, which is based on the belief that the pilot is a professional, and there are no destabilizing factors, human or natural, and so forth.
We are talking about other beliefs, which by their very nature divide people, start wars and so lead to death. I mean, there is this image about the scientist that he is neutral and acts logically, rationally and looks at the world impartially. Which is utterly false.
I am completely unfamiliar with this delusion. Can you provide examples of those suffering from it?
He only does that in a very limited field, and in some branches of science,
That is the nature of expertise. Usually ONE branch of science.
when it comes to interpreting the results of certain experiments
Actually that is certainly part of scientific expertise. For example, if one find that a clock sent on a long plane journey is running slow, a scientist interprets this as being due to relativistic effects.
and offer suggestions for the real world,
While any person may do that, this is not what scientists do professionally, Rather they may say that certain actions will result in certain consequences, Many other (relatively wise) people make suggestions based on this objective basis.
his bias as a human being, which is knowledge of psychological nature, completely wastes the results of his otherwise neutral experiments.
Since this entirely non-specific pontification is getting so wild, you need to provide examples.
But as a human being, the scientist is far from being unbiased.
Surely all humans have their biases. Some are less biased than others, though.
I was listening the other day to a theoretical physicist, and he seemed very sharp and neutral, unbiased, in talking about various possibilities of our Universe and beyond that. But as soon as the discussion turned to religion or some other mundane day-to-day aspect, he was back to belief, and not of the inevitable kind.
And why shouldn't he be, just like everyone else? This is an entirely subjective topic. Even scientifically absurd claims (that a scientist might refute in an argument) can be easily justified by an appeal to magic.
In the field that we’re talking about, the evidence is a mass hypnosis, a kind of ‘me too’ movement.
We are talking about things one can see for themselves. We are not talking about things one cannot see, but believe in them anyway, based on knowledge—evidence—again in the field of life, of relationships.
You either see something or you don’t. Belief is unnecessary, in this field.