Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/02/05 

Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:01:40 GMT

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:13:56 -0600, Albert <albertwagner@cox.net> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Lester Zick wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 19:18:17 -0600, Albert <albertwagner@cox.net> in
>> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 05:53:19 +0000 (UTC), Neil W Rickert
>>>><rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jason" <jasonstevensNOSPAM@free.net.nz> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[. . .]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Since mathematics has evolved along-side science and plays a large part in
>>>>>>describing and predicting how the world works, then as a formal system goes, it
>>>>>>seems to be on the money as far as capturing something about the world.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's your opinion. As a mathematician, I have a different
>>>>>opinion. I consider it important that mathematics is not about the
>>>>>world. Roughly speaking, mathematics is about what would happen if
>>>>>reality did not intrude. We discover a lot about reality by seeing
>>>>>how it differs from the mathematical ideal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If mathematics is not about the real world, what is it about? If it is
>>>>about the tautological elaboration of axioms, to what do the axioms
>>>>belong if not the real world and to what does the elaboration of the
>>>>axioms belong if not the real world? I don't see any way to defend
>>>>your contention that math is not about the real world. Especially
>>>>without any alternative definition for reality to which mathematics
>>>>belongs that isn't about the real world, whatever it is taken to mean.
>>>
>>>I have to agree with Neil, here. Mathematics is about the real
>>>world only when and only to the the extent that it is used to
>>>describe real world relationships. i.e. it is only coincidentally
>>>about reality.
>>
>>
>> The problem, Albert, is we have no way to decide what those real world
>> relationships are.
>
>I thought that was what the Scientific Method was all about. Of
>course, mathematicians aren't performing mathematics when they
>are doing experiments.

Well unfortunately what the scientific method is all about is strict
empiricism. It's actually more the empirical method than scientific
method, which technically regresses empirical observations to self
contradictory alternatives.

>> Neil has no criterion that I'm aware of. Is logic
>> about the real world? I would have to say so. So there's no way in my
>> estimation to say that tautologies are not about the real world.
>>
>> I think what Neil means is that mathematics occurs in the in-here
>> as opposed to the out-there. But that still makes it part of the real
>> world as far as I'm concerned. Far too many mathematicians get
>> stuck in mystical mumbo-jumbo trying to figure out just exactly
>> where mathematical objects are if they aren't in the real world.
>
>True. It's spooky dedicating your life to the study of
>abstractions totally unrelated to the real. That's why
>mathematics is now trying to subsume all of Science to their
>particular discipline.

This is why a lot of mathematikers consider themselves platonists when
they're actually mystics instead. They don't understand reality at all
as a general concept yet proclaim themselves founts of knowledge. Neil
considers logic a branch of mathematics instead of vice versa for some
reason, leading me to wonder what he thinks the in-here amounts to.

The really curious thing about all this nonsense is that what little I
can glean from the etymology of the term mathematics, there really is
a case to be made for mathematics as science in reductionist terms.
But typical mathematikers are too stupid to recognize their own sphere
of intended competence and prefer to deny that they have anything at
all to do with science.

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Your Communication Problems
    ... >>> Mathematics is not empirical science. ... >>> scientific method, which is essentially inductive and iterative. ... Let us say that science has provided them with the means to do their ... called "scientists". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How much can science tell us about sculling?
    ... underlying those causes & effects, so that you come actually to understand from first principles which basic factors are at play & their mathematical inter-relationships, & if from that basic understanding you are able mathematically to predict outcomes, that's science. ... I think if you look more closely you will find that even such "soft" sciences are now riddled with mathematics, ... I am fairly sure that their inclusion anywhere else in the scientific method is better described as "prejudice"; there are too many examples of such reasoning leading to false ideas. ... Coach observes that of two otherwise very similar athletes, the taller one rows faster on the water. ...
    (rec.sport.rowing)
  • Re: Why did Richard P. Feynman say, "I love only nature, and I hate mathematicians"?
    ... Half of the scientific method is not the scientific method. ... airy theorising is complete science. ... (although a large part of it is what scientists have done). ... It would certainly rule out almost all mathematics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Mathematics Is Not a Science
    ... > using the hypothesis of shoe size. ... > The proposition on the table was: mathematics ... > is not a science. ... exercise it is tied to empiricism and natural phenomena. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Why did Richard P. Feynman say, "I love only nature, and I hate mathematicians"?
    ... Half of the scientific method is not the scientific method. ... airy theorising is complete science. ... (although a large part of it is what scientists have done). ... It would certainly rule out almost all mathematics. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast