Re: Units of IBD
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:50:27 -0400 (EDT)
r norman NotMyRealEmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:_
> > JE:-
> >It appears Mr Norman cannot/refuses to differentiate between non
> empirical
> >based mathematics and entirely empirically based theories of science. He
> is
> >not alone. Arguably the most senior sbe poster Prof. Felsenstein who
> >actually precipitated this particular debate set the example. He has
> always
> >refused to discriminate between a non empirically based proposition of
> >mathematics, e.g. Hamilton's Rule and an empirically based proposition of
> >science e.g. Darwinian theory from which the rule was oversimplified.
> Prof
> >Felsenstein and others here profess to be competent mathematicians yet
> they
> >appear never to have applied Godel to critical mathematical propositions
> >employed within evolutionary theory, e.g. Hamilton's Rule.
>snip rhetoric<
> I will only point out my naive impression that mathematics has been
> useful to one or two branches of sciences in the past 400 or more
> years. To evolution, too (although not quite for so long).
JE:-
I entirely agree. I have never ever argued that simplified/oversimplified
models CANNOT be correctly and usefully employed within evolutionary theory.
It appears here that Mr Norman has just a dyslexic response to the word
"MISUSED" which I have employed here about 600 times. I have been arguing
for over 5 years now within sbe that mathematically based
simplified/oversimplified models have been MISUSED within evolutionary
theory. I have never ever argued that they CANNOT BE USED. I can only
conclude that Mr Norman wishes to misrepresent the argument I have been
presenting here for so long. To repeat it YET AGAIN: a non refutable
simplified/oversimplified model cannot be used to compete against the
refutable parent theory it was simplified/oversimplified from let alone
replace it, e.g. Hamilton's Rule.
> Then, again, I actually do have a degree in mathematics, so perhaps I
> am biased. Somehow I fail to appreciate that the existence of an
> undecidable proposition should prove that mathematics fails when
> applied to the real world. I guess I should have listened more
> closely in my "Foundations of Mathematics" class.
JE:-
Mathematics is *NOT*, never was and has never ever claimed to be, an
empirically based science. THEREFORE mathematics can be used or misused
within the empirically based the sciences. I am happy to open any NON BIASED
discussion as to what constitutes both the USE and the MISUSE of mathematics
within the sciences.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: NS and AaD curves
- Next by Date: Re: Underestimating 'r'
- Previous by thread: Re: Units of IBD
- Next by thread: Re: Units of IBD
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
