*…show more content…*

Postman argues that their arguments are invalid because being empirical and doing math doesn’t automatically makes you a scientist, if that were true, everyone would be a scientist. He argues that everyone observes things before making an assumption (everyone but sociopaths) so that makes everyone empirical. His example was him, assuming that he enjoys writing essays. His observation to his assumption was the fact that he wrote the one he had previously written and the fact that he had a whole journal full of essays. When it came to math Postman argued that just like being empirical, everyone performs math. He used children and detectives as examples of different form of using math, how children like to count their toes and fingers and how detectives count the numbers of crimes committed. These things do not make any of them scientist. There is a clear difference from the children’s and detectives use of math and scientist use of math. It’s the same when it comes to sociologist and actual scientist. Actual scientist use math to help uncover the structure of nature, he states, while sociologist use math to give some precision to his or her ideas. That does not make sociologist