Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/01/05
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Leroy Quet: "Integer Triangle: nth row not coprime to (n-1)th row"
- In reply to: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 19:22:26 GMT
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.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Leroy Quet: "Integer Triangle: nth row not coprime to (n-1)th row"
- In reply to: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|