Mathematics Is Not a Science

From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 02/22/05 

Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:25:18 -0500 (EST)

ekurtz99@WhoKnowsWhere.com

> >> JE:-
> >>Edser's Law Of Diminishing Truth.
> >>The level of reason within any argument is
> >>inversely proportional to the level of
> >>mathematics.

> > JM:-
> > Touche!

> EK:-
> Touched? Who are you talking about, you or Edser? If you argue with
> kooks long enough you become one (EKurtz' Law of Diminishing Sanity).

JE:-
EK has proven himself (yet again) to be a
puerile and vindictive personality. He refuses to
understand (let alone debate) the simple
proposition that irrefutable models cannot validly
replace refutable theory within the sciences.
He is not the only one.

EK refuses to debate if mass m is a
local constant (constant within each independent
event) or just a variable where only a constant can
provide a point of refutation for Newton. I am
happy to debate EK on this subject. EK appears
to understand little about epistemology. It also
appears he wishes to write himself a blank cheque
to be able to write whatever he likes without having
to test it. Rather than put all his basic premises
on the table to test EK prefers to dictate, bully
and then condemn anybody who disagrees with him.
OTOH everything I have stated here remains refutable.
EK will never understand the difference.

> > JM:-
> > Your hero, Darwin, apparently shared your distaste and distrust
> > for mathematics.

>EK:-
> ..and yet who now doubts that Fleming Jenkin was correct in concluding
> by mathematical argument that evolution is impossible with blending
> inheritance? With a little bit of luck and a bit more faith in (or
> understanding of) mathematics we might have had a theory of
particulate
> inheritance (and all that it implies) in the Darwin's day. No doubt
> Darwin had his own mathematically gormless defenders with their own
"Law
> Of Diminishing Truth" that kept this from happening. As it was, the
> correct theory had to wait over 30 years before it became well-known.

JE:-
Mathematics is not required to understand that "evolution is
impossible with blending inheritance". All you need is water,
a measuring cylinder, an eye dropper, black ink and a tad of
common sense.

A conformation that all mathematics can do is verify or
non verify scientific propositions (it is
singularly incapable of creating or refuting them)
can be found in:

http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/~lusche/PAPERS/thesis.pdf

"One of the classics
The aerodynamics of insect flight is substantially different from the
aerodynamics associated to manmade fixed and rotary-winged vehicles.
Traditional steady state solutions of hydrodynamics equations fail to
give reasonable answers. This inconsistency between theory and
experimental evidence generated the famous paradox which says that
according to laws of physics bumble bees cannot fly"

McMasters (in the Amer. Sci. 77:164-169) reported that a
famous Swiss professor of aerodynamics at a party was asked
about the aerodynamics of wasp and bee wings. He performed
a calculation for the bumblebee based on a smooth wing and
got a low Reynolds number "proving" the bee incapable of
flight. This over simplified model was later corrected.

This reminds me of the famous comment by J.B.S. Haldane
(the famous population geneticist). He is reported to have
said that he would sacrifice himself for two brothers or
eight cousins. However, this was not corrected, i.e. amazingly,
nobody counter argued that such an act would be irrational
if Haldane could have reproduced more than just once during
his lifetime. In fact this rather obvious error was
built upon by Hamilton et al. Hamilton's Rule (which
does not include a single total fitness) has been misused as
a valid argument for the evolution of organism fitness
altruism within nature. Had Haldane included his reproductive
total (the only fitness constant that can allow Haldane's
proposition to be tested to refutation) perhaps,
Hamilton et al be arguing something quite different.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105

Australia

edser@tpg.com.au

 

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
    ... constructivism has this law as a theorem in these cases ... the Law of the Excluded Middle is used. ... distraction (caused either by complications in the mathematics, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Publishing scientific information
    ... The whole of science proceeds ... Only refutation is ethical because it ... The Neo Darwinian establishment is ... refutable mathematics. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
    ... using the Law of the Excluded Middle. ... distraction (caused either by complications in the mathematics, ... the LEM is used in at least two places. ...
    (sci.math)
  • johnreed take 1A - October 18, 2006
    ... The Universe and the Mathematics: ... mathematical model, both our questions, and the answer to our questions ... law, to act at a distance, by setting his first law object on an ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • johnreed take 1A - Modified October 18, 2006
    ... The Universe and the Mathematics: ... mathematical model, both our questions, and the answer to our questions ... law, to act at a distance, by setting his first law object on an ...
    (sci.logic)