According to zoso they are. I disagree. For example, maths has proofs, science doesn't. The entire field of maths can be built from entirely human constructs, whereas science always seeks to explain or model nature. If it has any resemblance to nature, maths is abstracted from it so that it can be built on proofs.

From the other thread:

Where have I demonstrated a failure to understand the laws of maths?

You have failed to provide those laws. You are the one who brought them up, yet you cannot even say what they are.

freediver - on this you are right as I've just told zoso on the other thread. But you are still a religious crank.

;D

...who just happens to be right

You are right only by misrepresenting what I said.

Maths is not science, it arose from science and as such is scientific in nature. All you are doing is trying to cut clear distinctions for terms thatin reality overlap each other, the world is not black and white, only in the minds of christians.

bugger this site it blows. You are a piece of sh!t freediver, take your religious bullsh!t and shove it where god intended, and seems to have located your head.

From wikipedia:

Quote:

Mathematics is the body of knowledge centered on concepts such as quantity, structure, space, and change. It evolved, through the use of abstraction and logical reasoning, from counting, calculation, measurement, and the systematic study of positions, shapes and motions of physical objects. Mathematicians explore such concepts, aiming to formulate new conjectures and establish their truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions. Mathematics is used throughout the world in many fields, including science, engineering, medicine and economics. These fields both inspire and make use of new discoveries in mathematics. The application of mathematics to such fields is often called applied mathematics. Mathematicians also engage in pure mathematics, or mathematics for its own sake, without having any practical application in mind; although applications for what began as pure mathematics are often discovered later.

So the study of 'quantity, structure, space, and change' is not scientific?

The entire first paragraph there sounds like scientific study to me...

So it isn't science, it's just 'scientific in nature'??????

So the study of 'quantity, structure, space, and change' is not scientific?

Not the way mathematicians study it.

From the other thread:

You are fishing you piece of sh!t, you know the laws of maths

I had never heard of them until you brought them up. I suspect you just made this up. That is not to say that they don't exist. I'm just curious as to why you would make claims about these rules when you don't even know what they are.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 4:19pm:

From the other thread: You are fishing you piece of sh!t, you know the laws of maths I had never heard of them until you brought them up. I suspect you just made this up. That is not to say that they don't exist. I'm just curious as to why you would make claims about these rules when you don't even know what they are.

So maths is provable within itself, without a set of laws then? It is just this great big amorphous mass of randomness?

Of course maths has rules, that is how maths is defined, it is to an extent arbitrary...as is often the case with science.

I am not necessarily saying it doesn't have rules. I'm just saying that you made claims about those rules without even knowing what the rules are.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 4:19pm:

From the other thread: You are fishing you piece of sh!t, you know the laws of maths I had never heard of them until you brought them up. I suspect you just made this up. That is not to say that they don't exist. I'm just curious as to why you would make claims about these rules when you don't even know what they are.

bugger you freediver, you dangle the line still. It doesn't matter what I say in response to this, you will find a way of making it into an argument when there is none.

If you are a student as you said you were to me, the nyou would know that maths has rules, that is how it is defined, unless of course you lied to me about what you study? religious piece of sh!t, I am quite sure that is the case isn't it?

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 4:24pm:

I am not necessarily saying it doesn't have rules. I'm just saying that you made claims about those rules without even knowing what the rules are.

Find a point where I demonstrate my ignorance to the rules of maths in my words? Show me freediver, show me where I have said something, anything about any mathematical law?

I said they exist, you are fishing you front bottom and you smacking know it.

I am studying mechanical engineering and I have a 6.5 gpa in doing so... You want to tell me I don't know my maths? You want to come down here and say that without the security o your keybard in front of you?

If you are a student as you said you were to me, the nyou would know that maths has rules, that is how it is defined

I have never seen maths defined in any rigourous way. Certainly not with rules.

Show me freediver, show me where I have said something, anything about any mathematical law?

From the other thread:

You are fishing you piece of sh!t, you know the laws of maths

I said they exist, you are fishing you front bottom and you smacking know it.

Fair enough, you implied, by using them to back up your argument, that they exist.

You want to tell me I don't know my maths?

You don't know the rules that define it. Apparently anyway. It's nothing to be embarrassed about. I don't either.

zoso - you are just making it easier for freediver.

"So maths is provable within itself, without a set of laws then? It is just this great big amorphous mass of randomness? "

YES - maths is provable in itself. It constructs its own rules/axioms and then proves other things within itself from this and only from these rules/axioms. It relates to nothing. It is content free - therefore analytic. Russell and Whitehead showed this - it is meaningless. But it can be applied and it is applied to science.

Thanks sense. That makes sense, I think. Could you say that this is a rule that defines maths:

It constructs its own rules/axioms and then proves other things within itself from this and only from these rules/axioms.

That looks ok but I'm not an academic and it may not be 100% correct. Even modern geometry is fully defined nowadays without even the concept of a point or a line. We don't need to go too deep.

I had a couple of good threads going with you earlier but you got Zoso too annoyed.

Yes, I tend to do that, especially with the evolution thing. Maybe it's just the topic. People don't get as passionate about taxes or electoral reform.

That definition is growing on me, as it includes logic and set theory, which is generally included in maths but doesn't fit well with how you would generally describe maths. I was thinking about points and lines before. You can define a line from two points, but I was not aware of a way to get around defining a point.

Would computer programming satisfy that rule? Is it maths?

Freediver, I am talking about the history of how mathematic analysis arose, you say maths sprung into existence without humans first observing and trying to describe and analyse their surroundings, I am saying that maths came about through humans trying to describe and analyse their surroundings, which is a scientific practice.

No maths is not science, my point was that you made some bold claims about the extend of ancient greek scientific advancements amounting to 'nothing much' and I was simply demonstrating that this is a stupid thing to say.


Quote:

YES - maths is provable in itself. It constructs its own rules/axioms and then proves other things within itself from this and only from these rules/axioms. It relates to nothing. It is content free - therefore analytic. Russell and Whitehead showed this - it is meaningless. But it can be applied and it is applied to science.

Sense, yes, I have never disagreed with this and you sum up the subject remarkably well. My point, as it was for science, was not what it is considered today, but how it arose into being, maths did not begin as a purely content free field, it began as the study of quantity. I was pointing out the fatal flaws in freedivers evolution article, namely the part where he says the greeks achieved nothing other than philosophising under trees while getting drunk. He is wrong, and this whole stupid thing just exploded.

Funny now that you are being civil to him while I have utterly lost it, when only the other day the opposite was true :)

Freediver was just trying to ridicule me so that he could stand on his high ground and say "here: this person who has debated my position is not smart, do not listen to him". He is an @sshole, he knew what he was doing and thank you sense for helping him along, you did great.

You misrepresented what I had to say simply to make me look small freediver, tactics of a right front bottom, cheers for the sh!tty behaviour.

None of this can change the fact that you are useless sh!t religious crank who knows only enough about science to make spurious and dangerous claims against it. Evolution will go on as a strong scientific theory and will only be built upon, not put down. You will always be wrong on this topic until you start to pay attention to the scientific community.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 4:45pm:

Would computer programming satisfy that rule? Is it maths?

In every sense of the word, yes.

freediver - don't sidetrack me. Read Reichenbach, Carnap, Ayer, Schlick or Russell. And especially Hilbert on the lack of a need for visualisation in maths.

I don't get hung up about the words maths, science etc. I just like to use them like others - makes communication easier.
Independently of any logical or illogical arguments, evolution is science.  That is how all, outside the religious fringe, use the words. Evolution can be nothing other than a scientific subject even if were FALSE. It is really that simple.

wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 5:38pm:

I don't get hung up about the words maths, science etc. I just like to use them like others - makes communication easier. Independently of any logical or illogical arguments, evolution is science.  That is how all, outside the religious fringe, use the words. Evolution can be nothing other than a scientific subject even if were FALSE. It is really that simple.

MY GOD MAN! You have just perfectly summed up my ENTIRE ARGUMENT in a few well placed words. *shakes hand, then bows*

Forget all the dancing around particular topics, sense has it, sense is the man, this is it, this is what it all comes down to. This is what I've been trying to say the whole time and yet my stupid brain could not find the words that sense has used right here, thank you sense! This is perfect!

It does not matter if it is right or wrong, it is science as science is defined.

thanks Zoso - I took your advice and became a little respectful. My head cleared when I cooled down. Cheers mate.

wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 6:11pm:

thanks Zoso - I took your advice and became a little respectful. My head cleared when I cooled down. Cheers mate.

Cheers indeed :) Pity that half the time I can't take my own advice there :P

So what do you do that makes you so wise to the ways of wonderful maths?

Freediver, I am talking about the history of how mathematic analysis arose

Do you have any historical evidence? It doesn't even make sense from a historical perspective. The terms maths, science etc all arose well after the knowledge that first formed the field was aquired. They are all just branches of philosophy.

you say maths sprung into existence without humans first observing and trying to describe and analyse their surroundings

No I don't.

That is how all, outside the religious fringe, use the words.

Most scientists call it natural history.

It does not matter if it is right or wrong, it is science as science is defined.

I am not claiming it is right or wrong, nor basing my argument on it.

Ok I have calmed myself somewhat...freediver, I no longer care that you disagree, you can have your false understanding of evolution, this thread is not about that argument anyway.

My thinking on the topic (maths, not evolution) stems from observation of how the scientific method plays out in the construction of scientific models, specifically mathematical models. There are many instances in science where the models used are purely mathematical ones, and quite often once rudimentary conditions are discovered through empirical experiment maths takes over entirely in the creation of the model.

Yet again I will resort to Einstein as an example: Einstein used geometric mathematical models to describe what is generally understood as 'the fabric of space-time', on a very simple level, he took 3-d geometry and added a 4th dimension of time and described the whole lot in the standard geometric way: through triangulation and vector algebra etc. The general and special relativity models are purely mathematical, yet they are scientific none the less. Another example is Hooke's laws for linear elastic deformation of solids, empirical experiment shows that for elastic deformation homogeneous solids have a linear relationship between the force applied and the deformation that is observed, through this a linear mathematical model was built to describe the relationship and expand upon it through the use of purely mathematical theorems. Of course there is also Bohrs use of probability to describe the behaviour of matter at the quantum level. Mathematical models are used in almost every aspect of science, and quite often scientific models are expanded upon through purely mathematical methods. Calculus has near ubiquitous presence in all fields of science, as with statistics and probability. Forces are described scientifically as having quantity (magnitude) and quality (direction) and so vectors are used as a model for force, and matrix algebra used to calculate force interactions. Speed and acceleration are defined as change in distance per unit time and change in speed per unit time respectively, acceleration is the rate of change of speed and so acceleration, as described by science, is the derivative of speed, they relate scientifically through a mathematical model in calculus. And so I could go on for thousand of words using hundreds of examples.

What I want to ask now is where does the science end and the maths begin? Yes sense, pure maths is content free, but if you apply it to some scientifically defined content, does it cease to be maths? Conversely, if a scientific theory is derived through purely mathematical methods, does that mean it is no longer science but maths? My point is that there is overlap, sufficient overlap to say that often science is mathematical in nature and often maths is scientific in nature. I would even venture to say that if the original defining characteristics of mathematical method did not stem from observations of nature, that maths would not be so perfectly suited to use in scientific models as it is, indeed quite often modern maths is not so well suited to scientific models (topology used in string theory for example). It is my belief that the methods of science and the methods of maths are very often indistinguishable from each other, not that they are identical always, but they overlap enough to say that science is a mathematical process and maths is a scientific one, to a degree in each case at least.

This is where my argument stems from. It is true yes that the words 'science' and 'maths' are defined differently, and it is true that as fields of study they are separate and distinguishable. However it is also true that they cross over constantly, and one can sometimes define the other. The reason maths is used so extensively as the method of scientific modelling, and that so many say that 'maths is the language of science' is because they both rely on the same methods of logic. In maths it is possible to invent your defining qualities as sense pointed out and in science they are arrived upon through empirical study, however it is not the defining characteristics of each that I am concerned with here, what I am concerned with is the fact that the methods of both are often the same and completely interchangeable with one another.

Of course I am a believer that science is a process, not an outcome.

If you integrate f=ma to get speed or distance that is maths. From a scientific perspective f=ma and s=ut+1/2at^2 are the same thing. They both describe the nature of the universe, at least from a newtonian perspective. It's just a different way of saying the same thing, no different from phrasing the same theory differently.

Conversely, if a scientific theory is derived through purely mathematical methods, does that mean it is no longer science but maths?

It is not possible to derive a scientific theory through purely mathematical methods. Of course, this comes back to the definition of maths.

My point is that there is overlap, sufficient overlap to say that often science is mathematical in nature and often maths is scientific in nature. I would even venture to say that if the original defining characteristics of mathematical method did not stem from observations of nature, that maths would not be so perfectly suited to use in scientific models as it is, indeed quite often modern maths is not so well suited to scientific models

The only reason maths is useful is that mathematicians limit themselves to developing useful mathematics. It is quite easy to develop entire branches of mathematics that are internally consistent, and therefor correct from a mathematical perspective, but which are entirely useless. I think it was an engineer for example who developed impulses as mathematical constructs and it wasn't until there usefulness was demonstrated that the idea got published. It's like developing a new language. Many words have been added to the English language, or taken on a completely different meaning due to their use by scientists. Force, distance etc actually mean different things in Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics. That doesn't mean that science is mathematical or literary, as it is a simple matter, from a philosophical perspective, to differentiate the different tools being used. A hammer designed using FEM software is not a mathematical tool.

It is my belief that the methods of science and the methods of maths are very often indistinguishable from each other

Only because very few people take the time to distuinguish them. Not many people bother with philosophy or epistemology these days.

not that they are identical always, but they overlap enough to say that science is a mathematical process and maths is a scientific one, to a degree in each case at least

They only overlap to the extent that individual people use two different tools at the same time. To someone more familiar with philosophy, this argument may look like someone claiming that a screwdriver and a hammer are the same thing because they can't see how a mechanic does different things with them.

The reason maths is used so extensively as the method of scientific modelling, and that so many say that 'maths is the language of science' is because they both rely on the same methods of logic.

Maths is dependent on logic. Science relies on entirely different methods.

In maths it is possible to invent your defining qualities as sense pointed out and in science they are arrived upon through empirical study

What defining qualities? Science requires creativity in developing new theories. Empiricism is just a way of testing them. In maths, if you invent something properly in the first place then it is correct because it is built on logic, not an attempt to describe nature.

what I am concerned with is the fact that the methods of both are often the same and completely interchangeable with one another

See my earlier comments about taking the time to to distuinguish them.

Of course I am a believer that science is a process, not an outcome.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/science-methodology.html

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2007 at 8:29am:

Conversely, if a scientific theory is derived through purely mathematical methods, does that mean it is no longer science but maths? It is not possible to derive a scientific theory through purely mathematical methods. Of course, this comes back to the definition of maths.

But that is exactly how Einstein derived his theories of relativity, they could not be empirically tested for decades, indeed nobody even knew how they might be. The fact that they eventually were tested is irrelevant to the argument,at the time it was impossible to say how they might be. Relativity was constructed entirely using mathematical methods only.


Quote:

The only reason maths is useful is that mathematicians limit themselves to developing useful mathematics. It is quite easy to develop entire branches of mathematics that are internally consistent, and therefor correct from a mathematical perspective, but which are entirely useless.

I did actually mention this. String theory is a good example, however there is much debate in the scientific community as to whether string theory is scientific since it cannot be tested, it was derived from purely mathematical methods and yet it attempts to describe the universe. Many have said that while string theory may not be testable, neither was relativity (and often still isn't) and yet relativity was derived in the exact same way that string theory was - using maths and maths alone.


Quote:

I think it was an engineer for example who developed impulses as mathematical constructs and it wasn't until there usefulness was demonstrated that the idea got published. It's like developing a new language. Many words have been added to the English language, or taken on a completely different meaning due to their use by scientists. Force, distance etc actually mean different things in Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics. That doesn't mean that science is mathematical or literary, as it is a simple matter, from a philosophical perspective, to differentiate the different tools being used. A hammer designed using FEM software is not a mathematical tool.

So you are trying to tell me that if maths is used in science, it ceases to be maths?


Quote:

It is my belief that the methods of science and the methods of maths are very often indistinguishable from each other Only because very few people take the time to distuinguish them. Not many people bother with philosophy or epistemology these days.

I have taken the time to distinguish them, yet there is still crossover. The world is not clear-cut black and white, not ever, everything overlaps and interrelates with everything else.


Quote:

not that they are identical always, but they overlap enough to say that science is a mathematical process and maths is a scientific one, to a degree in each case at least They only overlap to the extent that individual people use two different tools at the same time. To someone more familiar with philosophy, this argument may look like someone claiming that a screwdriver and a hammer are the same thing because they can't see how a mechanic does different things with them.

Now you see this is just a different way of wording exactly what I have said, no a hammer and a screwdriver are not the same thing, but yes they are both mechanical tools. This is what I am saying.


Quote:

The reason maths is used so extensively as the method of scientific modelling, and that so many say that 'maths is the language of science' is because they both rely on the same methods of logic. Maths is dependent on logic. Science relies on entirely different methods.

Science does not rely on logic?

I believe that science and maths both rely on the same logic for a large part, and this is why maths is so perfectly suited to scientific models, and is so often used to extend scientific models through entirely mathematical methods.


Quote:

In maths it is possible to invent your defining qualities as sense pointed out and in science they are arrived upon through empirical study What defining qualities? Science requires creativity in developing new theories. Empiricism is just a way of testing them. In maths, if you invent something properly in the first place then it is correct because it is built on logic, not an attempt to describe nature.

The ones you and sense outlined: "It constructs its own rules/axioms and then proves other things within itself from this and only from these rules/axioms.". Science really does this too - no scientific model is anything more than a human construct that roughly approximates what a human witnesses in nature, and as such is only true within the rules/axioms that define the model. The only real difference s that science aims to produce models that have a meaningful outcome and limits itself to the description of nature. Again since science is the process not the outcome, it is still really very similar to maths, often identical.

Again, I am not trying to say that maths == science, I am trying to point out where they use the exact same processes of logic.

But that is exactly how Einstein derived his theories of relativity, they could not be empirically tested for decades, indeed nobody even knew how they might be. The fact that they eventually were tested is irrelevant to the argument,at the time it was impossible to say how they might be. Relativity was constructed entirely using mathematical methods only.

No, he discovered them by exploring contradictions in Newton's laws. That was what was really unique about it - that the problems arose via a 'thought experiment' rather than from the results of real experiments. Once he had the concept, he used maths to communicate it and to state it very explicitly, but it was not just an exercise in maths.

Going back to your language of science comment, the language of science is not science, it is just the language used to communicate scientific concepts. Maths is of course only part of that language.

So you are trying to tell me that if maths is used in science, it ceases to be maths?

No. What I am trying to tell you is that people engaged in science can use maths as a tool, mostly for communication, in the same sense that they use language. For example, I posted this in the previous post (I just noticed I accidentally italicised it):

If you integrate f=ma to get speed or distance that is maths. From a scientific perspective f=ma and s=ut+1/2at^2 are the same thing. They both describe the nature of the universe, at least from a newtonian perspective. It's just a different way of saying the same thing, no different from phrasing the same theory differently.

I have taken the time to distinguish them, yet there is still crossover.

So, you need more time to distuinguish them.

Now you see this is just a different way of wording exactly what I have said, no a hammer and a screwdriver are not the same thing, but yes they are both mechanical tools.

Science and maths are both branches of philosophy, but they are not the same thing and they can be distuinguished. A mechanic may hold a hammer in one hand and a screwdriver in the other. A researcher can do the same same with maths and the scientific method. What you term 'crossover' just means you are not familar enough with them to distuinguish them when a person uses both tools at the same time.

Science does not rely on logic?

A scientific theory cannot be illogical - that would just mean you could disprove it without even having to recourse to experiment. From a technical perspective an illogical theory is not scientific. But a scientific theory is not developed through logic. It is a creative process. Kuhn backs me up on this, as do most scholars.

and this is why maths is so perfectly suited to scientific models, and is so often used to extend scientific models through entirely mathematical methods

Maths is used in just about every field of study, and commerce etc. It it has a use anywhere and is mathematical (see the earlier definition) then mathematicians will adopt it.

The ones you and sense outlined: "It constructs its own rules/axioms and then proves other things within itself from this and only from these rules/axioms.". Science really does this too

No it doesn't. Maths proves it's statement from rules/axioms created within maths. Science attempts to disprove it's theories by comparing their predictions to experimental results. They are completely different methods.

no scientific model is anything more than a human construct that roughly approximates what a human witnesses in nature, and as such is only true within the rules/axioms that define the model

Scientic models (theories) are not defined via axioms. They are not statements of logic. They are descriptions of nature.

The only real difference s that science aims to produce models

The difference is in the methods used as well as what is produced.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2007 at 9:39am:

But that is exactly how Einstein derived his theories of relativity, they could not be empirically tested for decades, indeed nobody even knew how they might be. The fact that they eventually were tested is irrelevant to the argument,at the time it was impossible to say how they might be. Relativity was constructed entirely using mathematical methods only. No, he discovered them by exploring contradictions in Newton's laws. That was what was really unique about it - that the problems arose via a 'thought experiment' rather than from the results of real experiments. Once he had the concept, he used maths to communicate it and to state it very explicitly, but it was not just an exercise in maths.

No it was not just maths true, but how is a thought experiment not exploring the logic of nature? Essentially since Einsteins theories could not be tested, it was as much an exercise in maths alone as triangulation is to determine distance and position.


Quote:

Going back to your language of science comment, the language of science is not science, it is just the language used to communicate scientific concepts. Maths is of course only part of that language.

Exactly my point.


Quote:

It's just a different way of saying the same thing, no different from phrasing the same theory differently.

Exactly my point, it is just s different way of saying the same thing, one that works because the logic of maths and the logic of science are quite often compatible.


Quote:

I have taken the time to distinguish them, yet there is still crossover. So, you need more time to distuinguish them.

You seem to see the world as compartmentalised into little boxes of pure definition, on the other hand I have a far more zen approach in that I see the oneness and interaction of everything. It seems right now we are each debating the same points and using them to support our different views.


Quote:

Now you see this is just a different way of wording exactly what I have said, no a hammer and a screwdriver are not the same thing, but yes they are both mechanical tools. Science and maths are both branches of philosophy, but they are not the same thing and they can be distuinguished. A mechanic may hold a hammer in one hand and a screwdriver in the other. A researcher can do the same same with maths and the scientific method. What you term 'crossover' just means you are not familar enough with them to distuinguish them when a person uses both tools at the same time.

Yes, exactly my point again (first sentence), and again (do I have to repeat again?) I am not saying they are the same thing, I am saying they are sufficiently compatible to be able to define one in terms of the other in many instances. In fact,when you say science and maths are both philosophy you essentially state exactly what it is I have been trying to get across in my convoluted way. I just go a bit further and say they are both a part of the same BRANCH of philosophy.

I'm glad you are finally agreeing with me ;)


Quote:

and this is why maths is so perfectly suited to scientific models, and is so often used to extend scientific models through entirely mathematical methods Maths is used in just about every field of study, and commerce etc. It it has a use anywhere and is mathematical (see the earlier definition) then mathematicians will adopt it.

Exactly my point, the world is grey and muddled.


Quote:

The ones you and sense outlined: "It constructs its own rules/axioms and then proves other things within itself from this and only from these rules/axioms.". Science really does this too No it doesn't. Maths proves it's statement from rules/axioms created within maths. Science attempts to disprove it's theories by comparing their predictions to experimental results. They are completely different methods.

Here you go again saying that science is only science if experiment is involved, this is not true, observation and logical deduction are as much a part of scientific study as empirical experiment. You define science far too specifically, you even admitted that it is difficult to define rigorously.


Quote:

Scientic models (theories) are not defined via axioms. They are not statements of logic. They are descriptions of nature.

I see what is observed in nature and what is defined as logic as the same thing, logic could only have arisen through our observation of nature since there is not other observation to make.


Quote:

The only real difference s that science aims to produce models The difference is in the methods used as well as what is produced.

And one of those methods is maths.

The reason I even bother to engage in this esoteric and pointless discussion is one of pragmatism. I see an inherent danger in separating maths from science because by making it an esoteric subject and suggesting things like 'maths is content free' (true as it may be) people see it as pointless and irrelevant to their lives. The best way to engage people in maths is to demonstrate it to them through practical methods, and show them that maths is a practical and useful tool, not an esoteric exercise in nothingness. I see trouble today and on the horizon in the way youth is turned off from maths and science, because too many academic wankers have made these inaccessible subjects just to make themselves feel superior by demonstrating how tricky and complex their field is. Simplifying what these fields are and demonstrating how they are ubiquitous and all encompassing I see as an excellent path to grabbing peoples attention and bringing some interest back into these fields.

I would also like to correct my analogy, and point out that freedivers analogy of the screwdriver is a poor one, but I see the point he was trying to make.

What I am really saying here is that the mechanic uses the screwdriver and the cabinet maker uses the screwdriver as well, this does not make the screwdriver a mechanics tool alone or a cabinet makers tool alone, but it does not either mean these statements are not true. It is true still that the screwdriver is the mechanics tool, and part of the process of being a mechanic is to use the screwdriver, without it he is incomplete. The same is also true for the cabinet maker. The screwdriver is as much a part of the mechanic as it is a part of the cabinet maker and integral to both. So it is true to say that the screwdriver is mechanical and the mechanic is the screwdriver. Zen.

[i]but how is a thought experiment not exploring the logic of nature?

Because it is not based on logic. The contradictions were not internal to Newtonian mechanics, otherwise it would have been rejected from the beginning. The contradiction arose when properties of light were incorporated. The nature of the universe is not inherently logical, just consistent (from experience). The contradiction was not exactly of a logical nature, it was a contradiction of predictions. If two theories make different predictions, then you know at least one is wrong without doing an experiment. The logic involved was in the manipulation of the theries so that the contradictions were clear. As I indicated earlier with the s=ut+1/2at^2 example, such manipulation can be linguistic or mathematical. You are still stating the same theory. When Einstein manipulated the theories he was doing logic, which you could call maths. In this example the logic was trivial, however looking for the contradiction and knowing where to look was science and invpolved a creative process (I'm not sure if Einstein was the first to do this). Coming up with the new world view was also science and is where Einstein's creative (not logical) genius shone through. Putting it in the form of equations and manipulating them was maths. What you've got here is two tools being used at roughly the same time, though in a historical sense their use was problably separated in time. Part of your inability to separate the two tools is in the way you were taught the theory, which focusses on the outcome and ignores the historical and philosophical background.

Essentially since Einsteins theories could not be tested, it was as much an exercise in maths alone as triangulation is to determine distance and position.

No, using triangulation like that is based on a previously existing world view. When you triangulate something you are not doing science, you are doing maths. You are not contributing to our understanding of the world, you are making predictions from the current understanding. What Einstein did was change the meaning of force, distance and time to come up with a new world view. He did not manipulate the old world view with some mathematics.

Exactly my point, it is just s different way of saying the same thing, one that works because the logic of maths and the logic of science are quite often compatible.

No, it works because the mathematical manipulation doesn not change the science, just as phrasing something differently does not change the knowledge you are trying to communicate. It has nothing to do with 'compatible logic' behind the two fields.

You seem to see the world as compartmentalised into little boxes of pure definition, on the other hand I have a far more zen approach in that I see the oneness and interaction of everything.

You are confusing 'seeing the oneness' with being unable to see the differences. Even a monk who sees the oneness between a cat and a dog would not argue that you cannot always tell them apart consistently and that there were 'grey areas' between them.

I am saying they are sufficiently compatible to be able to define one in terms of the other in many instances

I am saying that it is not possible to do that. Ever. If you are talking about maths and science still that is.

In fact,when you say science and maths are both philosophy you essentially state exactly what it is I have been trying to get across in my convoluted way.

No I am not. I am saying that they are both forms of knowledge, or methods of aquiring knowledge. I am not saying they have the same logical foundation.

I just go a bit further and say they are both a part of the same BRANCH of philosophy.

Oh really, what branch would that be? The 'maths and science' branch? Usually putting to things on the same branch like that implies that they have something in common which nothing else does. What is it?

Exactly my point, the world is grey and muddled.

That is not what I was saying. I was clarifying the situation, not muddling it. I was pointing out the difference between what humans do which involves the use of multiple tools, and the tools themselves, which are distuinguishable.

Here you go again saying that science is only science if experiment is involved, this is not true, observation and logical deduction are as much a part of scientific study as empirical experiment.

No it isn't. That view of science has been long discarded. Google 'the problem of induction'.

You define science far too specifically, you even admitted that it is difficult to define rigorously.

I never admitted that. In fact I claim to have a very rigourous definition of it. It was maths I had the problem with, but that has been solved.

I see an inherent danger in separating maths from science because by making it an esoteric subject and suggesting things like 'maths is content free' (true as it may be) people see it as pointless and irrelevant to their lives.

You can't seriously think that people are going to start seeing maths as pointless because it is not dependant on exernal factors. To me, it adds to it's usefulness. What you are saying is that philosophy is pointless because you cannot differentiate these fields of study. But you can differentiate them and it aids greatly in nunderstanding them and the knowledge aquired through them.

The best way to engage people in maths is to demonstrate it to them through practical methods, and show them that maths is a practical and useful tool, not an esoteric exercise in nothingness.

Likewise with a spoken language. You would have a hard time convincing someone of it's benefit without demonstrating it to them. But what we have said about maths does not mean it is an esoteric exercise in nothingness. It means that all the statements it makes are logically true and provable. It makes them immune from human folly in a way that science will never be. Don't you think it is helpful (or would be) for people to know what types of statements are logically true and provable and which are subject to human inadequacy?

I see trouble today and on the horizon in the way youth is turned off from maths and science, because too many academic wankers have made these inaccessible subjects just to make themselves feel superior by demonstrating how tricky and complex their field is.

You are the one saying it is 'muddy' and hard to define. Furthermore, you are basically arguing that we should avoid knowledge out of fear that those with less knowledge might be put off by the the knowledge that others have which they don't. In my opinion, understanding the knowledge itself makes it more accesible.

Simplifying what these fields are and demonstrating how they are ubiquitous and all encompassing I see as an excellent path to grabbing peoples attention and bringing some interest back into these fields.

I am simplifying them. You are the one saying it is impossible to even define what they are. That is what puts people off. that is what put Robert Pirsig off science!

So it is true to say that the screwdriver is mechanical and the mechanic is the screwdriver.

You forgot the hammer. It was an analogy about a hammer and a screwdriver.

Have you ever had trouble telling the difference between a mechanic and a screwdriver? Have you ever been put off car maintenance by academic wankers who say it is possible to define each separately when you cannot yet tell them apart?

Quote:

You can't seriously think that people are going to start seeing maths as pointless because it is not dependant on exernal factors. To me, it adds to it's usefulness. What you are saying is that philosophy is pointless because you cannot differentiate these fields of study. But you can differentiate them and it aids greatly in nunderstanding them and the knowledge aquired through them.

I don't think it, I witness it and have experienced it myself. First maths course I did in university stressed above all else the practical applications of maths, because this is what appeals to people. Try to think like a lay person for a second, yes of course on an academic level the fact that maths can be applied to anything is its greatest strength, but tell this to the average person and then ask them to simply go out and work it out will and does turn them away. People need to be SHOWN the practical usefulness of maths.

Quote:

Furthermore, you are basically arguing that we should avoid knowledge out of fear that those with less knowledge might be put off by the the knowledge that others have which they don't. In my opinion, understanding the knowledge itself makes it more accesible.

Not at all, what is important is the way in which knowledge is communicated. It makes far more sense to someone that has no experience in maths and no interest to gain their attention by showing them how maths relates physically to the physical world.

Quote:

I am simplifying them. You are the one saying it is impossible to even define what they are. That is what puts people off. that is what put Robert Pirsig off science!

I am saying they are ubiquitous and all encompassing, and thus relevant to all man's pursuits.

Tell me, what is the simpler definition of science: that science and maths are a description of the process of human acquisition of knowledge about nature, or your long winded specific definition that relies on any number of other concepts for it to be reconciled? Who has the simple definition? My definition does not fit maths well enough, but Science and maths are still inseparable concepts that arose together and can often be used to define one another.

First maths course I did in university stressed above all else the practical applications of maths, because this is what appeals to people.

But that does not contradict what has been said about maths. We are not saying that maths is useless.

It makes far more sense to someone that has no experience in maths and no interest to gain their attention by showing them how maths relates physically to the physical world.

That doesn't mean we should lie to them and say that maths is not internally consistent and provable. And when did we get on to education of maths anyway? Whether or not you teach something does not change whether it is true.

Quote:

Have you ever had trouble telling the difference between a mechanic and a screwdriver?

Yes, in fact I do, on a very pointless level that is not relevant, I am describing the oneness of everything I experience. "life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves" ;)


Quote:

Have you ever been put off car maintenance by academic wankers who say it is possible to define each separately when you cannot yet tell them apart?

Good, so my points soared straight over your head...

How many times do I have to say that my point is not that science and maths are the same, my point is that they are both part of the same process, and both use the same methods, often, not always. Each can also be used to define the other in some limited sense. You cannot look at the interrelated nature of science and maths and deny there is some correlation between the two. To do so is only to impose artificially defined constraints to natural processes.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2007 at 3:06pm:

First maths course I did in university stressed above all else the practical applications of maths, because this is what appeals to people. But that does not contradict what has been said about maths. We are not saying that maths is useless.

And I am not saying that. I am not contradicting what has been said about maths, I already showed you that what we are saying is the same thing, we are simply AGAIN, arguing about how we define certain words, namely science.


Quote:

It makes far more sense to someone that has no experience in maths and no interest to gain their attention by showing them how maths relates physically to the physical world. That doesn't mean we should lie to them and say that maths is not internally consistent and provable. And when did we get on to education of maths anyway? Whether or not you teach something does not change whether it is true.

I never said we should. I am saying that intuition shows that there is more to the relationship between maths and science than your definitions allow for, I believe we need to be able to communicate this to people more meaningfully. I already believe your definition of science is wrong, so again, this is all this comes down to.

Yes, in fact I do, on a very pointless level that is not relevant, I am describing the oneness of everything I experience.

I still don't believe you have trouble telling them apart. Saying they are part of something bigger does not mean you can't distuinguish them. I think you are interpretting this oneness thing wrong.

my point is that they are both part of the same process, and both use the same methods, often, not always

never, unless you mean a method like 'thinking' but such an argument would be pointless, like arguing for the sake of argument.

Each can also be used to define the other in some limited sense.

Not in any sense at all. Try to define one in terms of the other.

I am saying that intuition shows that there is more to the relationship between maths and science than your definitions allow for

Intuition based on experience can be wrong. It is an excuse for ignorance.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2007 at 3:24pm:

Yes, in fact I do, on a very pointless level that is not relevant, I am describing the oneness of everything I experience. I still don't believe you have trouble telling them apart. Saying they are part of something bigger does not mean you can't distuinguish them. I think you are interpretting this oneness thing wrong.

Jesus freediver how many times have I said that I can clearly tell them apart!?! I have said it repeatedly. This does not change the fact that maths is the perfect language to describe scientific models, more perfect than any other for the majority of cases. I am trying to say that there is more to this than you give credit for, perhaps the way in which maths and science evolved together and grew out of the same original philosophies?


Quote:

my point is that they are both part of the same process, and both use the same methods, often, not always never, unless you mean a method like 'thinking' but such an argument would be pointless, like arguing for the sake of argument.

It is the process of man describing what he understands. Yes call it thinking if you like, but that is far too broad a subject. You cannot seriously tell me that maths and science are just completely different and never cross over? Why then are so many scientific models described only through maths?

You speak a lot of language, you are aware that all mathematical models and methods can be converted into language and words right? As can scientific models. This is again what I am talking about, here you can see that language can describe maths, no they are not the same thing, but one can describe the other, they use the same principles at times, quite often really, language has rules and constructs to which it is true as is the case for maths and science. They are all examples of a systematic human explanation of human understanding.


Quote:

Each can also be used to define the other in some limited sense. Not in any sense at all. Try to define one in terms of the other.

So geometry cannot describe maths in some limited sense? Maths cannot describe scientific methods in some limited sense?


Quote:

I am saying that intuition shows that there is more to the relationship between maths and science than your definitions allow for Intuition based on experience can be wrong. It is an excuse for ignorance.

So I'm ignorant now?

I want to wrap this up because we are going nowhere, this a philosophical argument not a tangible one and as such neither of us can actually be right or wrong. I found this quote from a guy called David Gross, a theoretical physicist: (http://precondition.blogspot.com/2005/10/whether-mathematics-is-science.html)


Quote:

Since Mathematics I regard as 'real' as physics, it's an elaborate language that we creatures of evolution in physical world has developed in order to understand the physical world, and the only thing that I would ever find surprising was that if there wasn't a match in both the elegance, beauty and power of intellectual tools that we have evolved and developed by the processes of evolution to enable us to understand and control the physical world. All we are doing, is discovering structures out there in the language that we have developed to describe the physical world. So there is a 'reality' to it which is tied to both the physical world and that the minds that have evolved to understand it, which is why it will be isomorphic in any other solar system or galaxy, the mathematics there is undoubtably exactly the same in structure and content. The only thing that would be unreasonable would be that this human creation or discovery rather, wasn't effective and elegant and appropriate for description of physical reality.

This sums up my belief well, yes maths can be 'content free' but to say that because it is not concerned with the observable means it is not concerned with nature is a fallacy. Even if all maths does is describe what we see in our imaginations, I see that as a natural process none the less, there is nothing special and unnatural about the imagined, if you like, maths is the science of the imagination. But it is so much more than that, as this particular scientist says, any part of maths that does not describe an aspect of nature is not maths.

That is my view, I disagree with freediver and sense, nothing more matters. Of course freediver will come off all high and mighty about how wrong I am and how this means don't actually know anything about maths or science and so on. This is not a black and white topic, and definitions of these terms add nothing to the fields of study. As has already been said, computer programming is maths, but do we put it under the umbrella of maths? not at all, it is computing. Definitions are moot, and irrelevant to the subject matter, what is relevant is knowledge: maths, science, language, engineering, computing, this is all just human knowledge, there is nothing really that distinguishes any bit of knowledge from another. All human knowledge is some meaningful description of nature, since there is nothing but nature to describe,even if its is only our imaginations.

You cannot seriously tell me that maths and science are just completely different and never cross over?

Yes that's what I'm saying. A good definition of them both matches what people generally understand and allows the two to be consistently distuingished. That's what good philosophy is all about.

Why then are so many scientific models described only through maths?

None are.

You speak a lot of language, you are aware that all mathematical models and methods can be converted into language and words right?

Only to the extent that language has adopted maths, like using equals instead of =.

As can scientific models.

Words sure, but not maths. Maths is too limited. Are you familiar with the concept of converting an every day problem into a mathematical one? This is part of what is taught in maths in school, and teachers (at least the good ones) stress it's importance as a skill. It is not necessarily the same or the whole problem. It is a very limited part of the problem which can be expressed in mathematical terms. This is what you often do in science class, but you are not doing science. You are just repeating the same thing over and over again in a different language (maths) until you understand it. Rephrasing a scientific theory with different words to help you understand it is not science and neither is manipulating it with maths.

This is again what I am talking about, here you can see that language can describe maths, no they are not the same thing, but one can describe the other

Language can also describe science. But maths can't. Nor can science describe maths.

they use the same principles at times, quite often really

such as?

This sounds like your earlier claim that each can define the other. Go ahead and try.

So geometry cannot describe maths in some limited sense?

No geometry is a branch of maths. It can describe triangles. It can demonstrate part of what maths is, to the extent that it can demonstrate itself. That is all.

Maths cannot describe scientific methods in some limited sense?

No. Science is not a branch of maths, nor vice versa.

So I'm ignorant now?

We are all ignorant.

I want to wrap this up because we are going nowhere, this a philosophical argument not a tangible one and as such neither of us can actually be right or wrong.

Different philosophies are usually judged in terms of which one is better. That doesn't make it pointless.

the mathematics there is undoubtably exactly the same in structure and content

That entire quote is clumsy. Of course the maths will be the same, it is an entirely human construct.

This is not a black and white topic, and definitions of these terms add nothing to the fields of study.

Are you sure about that? I think they do.

As has already been said, computer programming is maths, but do we put it under the umbrella of maths?

Sure, by saying it is maths you are putting it under the same umbrella.

not at all, it is computing

Which is a subset of maths. That's just like saying algebra isn't maths because it's algebra.

Definitions are moot, and irrelevant to the subject matter, what is relevant is knowledge: maths, science, language, engineering, computing, this is all just human knowledge

Didn't you concede before that science si a methodology?

there is nothing really that distinguishes any bit of knowledge from another

Yes there is. For starters, whether it is possible to prove it.

The quote is good, read it enough times to get your head around it if you do not grasp the way in which it is worded, do not just imply that everything that disagrees with you is wrong and stupid (as you frequently do). Just because you do not agree or you find it difficult to read does not mean it is clumsy, I found it quite eloquent.

This is simple, and all comes down to the fact that I define science far more broadly and in more simple terms than you do, in this way my definition of science is quite capable of including maths.

Science is the method through which man tries to explain and understand nature, it is the process through which meaningful knowledge of nature is gathered and organised. Maths is defined within this, in your own words: "It constructs its own rules/axioms and then proves other things within itself from this and only from these rules/axioms.", and since these rules/axioms are products of natural processes (human thought), maths is a process of describing nature and a means through which to understand it. Nice broad simple definitions.

I do not think you are not wrong, I simply disagree wit the way you define science, and you will find that many are on my side in this, proponents of string theory for example.

I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was clumsy. I think I know what he was trying to say, he just had trouble getting the right words. For example, when he said the same maths would apply, I assume he meant the same physical laws (eg gravity). I doubt he was considering the possiblity that one plus one would not equal two.

This is simple, and all comes down to the fact that I define science far more broadly and in more simple terms than you do, in this way my definition of science is quite capable of including maths.

But you don't define science, you just cirticise my defintion. For example, you think that science and maths can define each other. They can't, which I why I suggested you try it. Maybe then you would understand the difference.

Maths is defined within this, in your own words

I think sense came up with that.

and since these rules/axioms are products of natural processes (human thought),

To suggest that everything humans think up is natural destroys the meaning of natural.

and since these rules/axioms are products of natural processes (human thought), maths is a process of describing nature

That is a non-sequitor

I do not think you are not wrong, I simply disagree wit the way you define science

Yet you don't have a better definition. You seem to prefer no definition at all. And disagreeing with how I define science means you think my definition is wrong.

Quote:

Science is the method through which man tries to explain and understand nature, it is the process through which meaningful knowledge of nature is gathered and organised. Maths is defined within this, in your own words: "It constructs its own rules/axioms and then proves other things within itself from this and only from these rules/axioms.", and since these rules/axioms are products of natural processes (human thought), maths is a process of describing nature and a means through which to understand it. Nice broad simple definitions.

Here I have defined both? What are you blind, or stupid?

Your definition is ambiguous. For example this:

Science is the method through which man tries to explain and understand nature, it is the process through which meaningful knowledge of nature is gathered and organised.

Does not contradict my definition. To the extent it is broader, it could include mysticism, provided it has meaning to those who gather information that way.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2007 at 5:50pm:

Your definition is ambiguous. For example this: Science is the method through which man tries to explain and understand nature, it is the process through which meaningful knowledge of nature is gathered and organised. Does not contradict my definition. To the extent it is broader, it could include mysticism, provided it has meaning to those who gather information that way.

Exactly, your definition does fit into mine, but yours is limiting eg. it requires that evolution is not science. Science is broader than the limited definition you have, and often needs to be defined differently to fit the various sciences, clearly biology requires a different definition than physics for example.

Oh and I do actually believe that all religions are simply very early examples of scientific endeavour, but I have been crucified before on this and probably will be again, but my belief is firm.

Also:

Quote:

To suggest that everything humans think up is natural destroys the meaning of natural

In what way is human thought not natural? My statement does not destroy the meaning of natural, it simply acknowledges the scope of the word.

We can disagree on this and be civil about it (you are never going to be right all the time so better to know how to be modest all of the time!), I don't think anyone in the scientific community will tell you there is a solid and unchallenged definition of what science is, I simply try to use one that encompasses all others.

Science is broader than the limited definition you have

There is no way to define it more broadly without loosing it's meaning.

and often needs to be defined differently to fit the various sciences

Then it is not a definition of science at all, but a definition of one of the fields, ie it is too narrow.

clearly biology requires a different definition than physics for example

No it doesn't.

Oh and I do actually believe that all religions are simply very early examples of scientific endeavour, but I have been crucified before on this and probably will be again, but my belief is firm.

Do you think whether God exists is a scientific question?

In what way is human thought not natural?

The term natural is used to separate what is created by humans (ie, artificial). That includes what we create in our own heads.

We can disagree on this and be civil about it

Oh really? That would be great.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2007 at 7:08pm:

Science is broader than the limited definition you have There is no way to define it more broadly without loosing it's meaning.

Yes there are, we could for instance bring god into it?

Specific definitions become important in the context of different scientific methods, depending on the rigour and quality of the precedents that are set within the particular field of study. No, all science is certainly not considered in as broad a sense as my definition of science, good science most often requires a deeper definition than this, such as the one that you provide, but that one is only a very specific description of a way to go about science, a more modern way as is applied to situations where it is relevant and achievable. The thing is that science can arise from so much more than what you limit yourself to in your article. As I say science is the method, science is any method that is applied in an objective way by applying some sort of order and structure to problems or questions, attempting to limit the influence of human perceptions, in some sort of attempt to explain and understand nature. It can and does refer to things far simpler than what you demonstrate in your article. Science must remain broad and ambiguous enough to allow for new fields to easily be accepted, and an openness to constant changes in understanding, to be 'self correcting' as you say.


Quote:

Oh and I do actually believe that all religions are simply very early examples of scientific endeavour, but I have been crucified before on this and probably will be again, but my belief is firm. Do you think whether God exists is a scientific question?

That question is phrased in the most loaded way imaginable...

No I do not think whether god exists or not is a scientific question. I believe that god is a convenient way to describe many of the things that are now described in other ways, and that it is very likely that a belief in god came out of the same desire to seek understanding in nature that drives science.


Quote:

In what way is human thought not natural? The term natural is used to separate what is created by humans (ie, artificial). That includes what we create in our own heads.

I don't think many people accept that view any more, certainly not many people I know, and certainly not many scientists.

No I do not think whether god exists or not is a scientific question.

Then why suggest we bring God into science?

I believe that god is a convenient way to describe many of the things that are now described in other ways

Just like evolution. Convenience is not an excuse for laziness in science.

and that it is very likely that a belief in god came out of the same desire to seek understanding in nature that drives science

That could perhaps come under scientific investigation, although it is a bit difficult to employ the scientific method in psychology.

I don't think many people accept that view any more, certainly not many people I know, and certainly not many scientists.

Then why use the term at all? If it includes human products, everything is natural.

The thing is that science can arise from so much more than what you limit yourself to in your article.

What I describe in my article is not what science arises from, it is what restricts science to answering those questions whose answers have produced 'modern technology.'

science is any method that is applied in an objective way

The method I described is the only way to keep science objective.

attempting to limit the influence of human perceptions

All science is completely dependent on human perceptions.

Science must remain broad and ambiguous enough to allow for new fields to easily be accepted

Whether a field is accepted does not depend on whether it is scientific.

and an openness to constant changes in understanding, to be 'self correcting' as you say

The method I described is the only method that ensures science is self correcting

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2007 at 2:30pm:

No I do not think whether god exists or not is a scientific question. Then why suggest we bring God into science?

Beats me? You asked the question, You tell me?


Quote:

I believe that god is a convenient way to describe many of the things that are now described in other ways Just like evolution. Convenience is not an excuse for laziness in science.

Tell me, what questions does evolution ask that are answered through different means? Credible scientific examples? Not some bullsh!t you just made up here on this website, go out and find some examples.


Quote:

and that it is very likely that a belief in  god came out of the same desire to seek understanding in nature that drives science That could perhaps come under scientific investigation, although it is a bit difficult to employ the scientific method in psychology.

Who said anything about psychology? Still, that hasn't stopped anyone from trying, and if they try, it is science, it may be poor science but it is science.


Quote:

I don't think many people accept that view any more, certainly not many people I know, and certainly not many scientists. Then why use the term at all? If it includes human products, everything is natural.

A very simplistic way to look at it, you dismiss the potential for subtlety.

Words can carry different meanings in certain contexts, in the context of science, yes everything is natural and it is used as a term to distinguish between that which is able to be studied scientifically, and that which can not (eg faith). In the context of your day to day conversations, yes nature often defines human from everything else (although I refuse to accept this, so much stupidity comes from this arrogant perception of man), but this is far too clumsy a definition for science, and this is not the context of our conversation.


Quote:

The thing is that science can arise from so much more than what you limit yourself to in your article. What I describe in my article is not what science arises from, it is what restricts science to answering those questions whose answers have produced 'modern technology.'

And what of the science that has not produced modern technology? You miss all of the historical achievements of science, as I pointed out with the ancient greeks, but much was even discovered and studied before those times. Tell me, do you think then that when science that has been left to the history books it is no longer science?


Quote:

science is any method that is applied in an objective way The method I described is the only way to keep science objective.

It is one way, but too narrow to encompass everything we understand as science.


Quote:

attempting to limit the influence of human perceptions All science is completely dependent on human perceptions.

True, but you take my meaning out of context, I should have said preconceptions, emotions etc, but I chose to use one word, an error of communication if you missed my point, essentially all I meant was to be objective.


Quote:

Science must remain broad and ambiguous enough to allow for new fields to easily be accepted Whether a field is accepted does not depend on whether it is scientific.

So we are accepting non scientific fields into science now?


Quote:

and an openness to constant changes in understanding, to be 'self correcting' as you say The method I described is the only method that ensures science is self correcting

It is not the only way, it is one way, a good way, but not the only way.

The truth is freediver, while I sit and study scientific subjects and ponder on your tight little definition I can only notice how much of my science texts do not fit what you call science. I went through a chapter of a thermodynamics text today and read it, mentally selecting and removing passages of text that do not fit your definition of science, and without these passages many topics no longer made much sense? Is thermodynamics not science? Indeed, what is empirical about the thought experiment? All thought experiments are exercises in intuition concerning nothing but content that is made up and in the mind, purely maths as sense defined it, are thought experiments not science? While one studies science they can be engaged in science and yet not conduct one experiment or postulate one theory, a student may not do one single thing you define as science, yet they are still engaged in science. If I attempt a scientific problem as outlined in my text, using maths taught to me in that text, I am not conducting empirical study, nor am I making meaningful predictions, nor proposing theories. I am however engaged in science.

The problem with the way you define science is that it does not encompass things that everyone regards as scientific already, like evolution, which means you are applying a false definition to the word. And that is all there is to it.

Just to add to something mentioned earlier.
Sure the Greeks did a lot of science. There was then a quiet period until Galileo. The quiet period ran from 0AD to about 1600AD. All do to Christianity stifling all science. People couldn't do science during that time because the ruling churches burnt them if they did. Galileo got that changed and on we went with the scientific revolution which has lasted until now.
I think freediver wants to call a halt again and begin the dark ages number 2.

Tell me, what questions does evolution ask that are answered through different means?

It answers them. It doesn't ask them. It answers them in the same way that microeconomics answers questions about the state of the current global economy, without actually sheeding any light un the fundamental reasons.

in the context of science, yes everything is natural and it is used as a term to distinguish between that which is able to be studied scientifically, and that which can not (eg faith).

Now I get why you used the term, but maths cannot be studied scientifically either.

Tell me, do you think then that when science that has been left to the history books it is no longer science?

No, a lot of the theories the ancient greeks came up with are scientific. My reason for the reference to modern technology is that the technoloigcal explosion over the last few centuries resulted from the institutionalisation of the modern scientific method. It highlights the difference between blindly stumbling across the simpler scientific discoveries as the ancient greeks did and systematically uncovering them via the modern scientific method.

It is one way, but too narrow to encompass everything we understand as science.

No it isn't. Evolution is the only theory that is mistaken considered by some members of the general public to be science. This is due to the lumping together of scientific and unscientific theories, not to a broader meaning to science.

So we are accepting non scientific fields into science now?

No, you misunderstood me. I did not say whether as field is accepted as science..., obviously whether it is accepted as scientific depends on whether it is scientific. Having more fields accepted as science is alone no reason to blur the defintion of science. To do so would make theries like intelligent design scientific, which is exactly the opposite of what people want. It would turn a useful distinction into a meaningless one.

It is not the only way, it is one way, a good way, but not the only way.

The modern scientific method is the reason science has leapt ahead over the last few centuries and given us all that technology. Lack of it is the reason why so many other beginnings (eg China) petered out into nothing. If there is an alternative method that works, it is not known to historians.

I can only notice how much of my science texts do not fit what you call science.

My high school science textbook defined science the same way I do. The reason for the apparent discrepancy is that high school textbooks tech the results of science and are very misleading on how that knowledge came about. Kuhn backs me up on this. But you have to at least be aware of what has been discovered before in order to contribute to knowledge (and of course to benefit from it). While Kuhn correctly pointed out that textbooks can be misleading about the scientific method, he also pointed out that this does not necessarily hinder progress.

It only really becomes a problem when so many scientists lose sight of what science really is and engage in pointless academic battles, such as the one we currently see in the US between evolutionists and creationists. Then there is a genuine risk. Then they end up wasting 'scientific' careers on dogma.

I went through a chapter of a thermodynamics text today and read it, mentally selecting and removing passages of text that do not fit your definition of science

Give me an example and I will explain why you were wrong to remove it.

Is thermodynamics not science?

Thermodynamics is science.

All thought experiments are exercises in intuition

In Einsteins case, they were not. They were predictions from the current theory. An experiment requires a predicted outcome to be useful. Predicting that outcome requires you to perform a thought experiment. In other situations, a thought experiment is useful in getting people to picture a concept with which they are actually already very familiar in their everyday lives.

While one studies science they can be engaged in science

Learning what has already been disovered is different from contributing to the field of knowledge. Like I said, you have to catch up before you can overtake. However, learning science does usually get you to use the scientific method. That's what prac's are. It's not all theory you know. Did you ever get the impression that pracs were a wate of time? That's because your teacher didn't explain why you were doing them. They just hoped you would pick up the scientific method by doing it. Luckily, many teachers also teach it explicitly.

If I attempt a scientific problem as outlined in my text, using maths taught to me in that text, I am not conducting empirical study, nor am I making meaningful predictions, nor proposing theories. I am however engaged in science.

You are manipulating a scientific theory with maths. Like I said before this itself is not science. It is just translating the theory. It's like rephrasing it in english. Just as youy learn a theory by stating it different ways, you learn a theory by employing it to make predictions. Kuhn made the same argument.

However, it is wrong to say that your predictions are not meaningful. They are. It's just that you don't test them empirically. Experiments cost a huge amount of time and money. Instead your teacher marks them.

The problem with the way you define science is that it does not encompass things that everyone regards as scientific already, like evolution, which means you are applying a false definition to the word.

Scientists call evolution natural history. So do most of the general public. It is only failure to distuinguish natural selection and evolution that leads to any confusion.

All do to Christianity stifling all science.

History does not back you up on that. Most famous early scientists were Christians seeking to know God through His work. There were other reasons, such as a widely held view during the renaissance that the ancient texts were the source of all knowledge. Plus, there was of course the lack of the scientific method. You can't go far without that.

I think freediver wants to call a halt again and begin the dark ages number 2.

I am not saying we shouldn't study evolution.

Freediver, you can be engaged in science without conducting a single experiment. What you describe is one example of the scientific method, it is not science in its entirety, just a part of it. I do not dismiss your definition, quite the contrary, I even agree that it is a very good way to approach science, but your definition does not include all of science. Forget evolution then, what about my other example? You tell me the simply studying science is not being engaged in science until you do an experiment? Utter bull, thought experiments are sufficient for one, as is the use of mathematical methods to explore and manipulate existing theories, it is all science, experiment is not needed. You dismiss Diamonds work as history, not science, and yet he is a biologist and his books are entirely scientific, using very similar methods to those used in evolutionary study, methods considered by the scientific community to be valid science. Again you fail to include all areas of science. Archeologists? Paleontologists? Same methods again. Are you telling me these people are not scientists, despite having been trained for years in the area of science, and being accepted by the whole scientific community as scientists?

Also you have compared your high school text to the ones I have been issued at university, I'll just let that speak for itself.

Thought experiment is maths as sense has defined maths, if that is how you define maths (and I agree that it is) but thought experiments are also science. Einstein used already existing theories in his experiment but I have already pointed out that a theory is only a human mental construct, it is not nature. You cannot directly observe nature by thinking about it, and you cannot actually make a perfect theory, even more you cannot objectively observe nature in the first place, are you familiar with the Heisenburg uncertainty principle? It more or less says that all scientific observations cannot accurately describe nature since observing nature influences what is observed. It is the cornerstone of quantum mechanics. Are you familiar with Schrodingers cat? Or Maxwells demon? These are completely non testable experiments because they rely on purely imagined scenarios that could never exist. The known scientific theories they were based on are only human derived laws that approximate nature, they do not accurately describe it, and thus they are defined by the same description as accurately defines maths. And yet everyone considers these to be important scientific experiments? To add to this, can you name for me one mathematical field that does not attempt in some way to describe nature? Nature as we have defined for use in science, not idle conversation.

There is no reason why new scientific theories won't be 'stumbled upon' in the future, indeed, many scientific theories are stumbled upon all the time, take the discovery of penicillin. This is yet another reason why you need a broader definition of what science is than what you give. You only describe a part of science, not the whole.

To quote Jared Diamond again (this time I will use more of the text since it outlines what I am on about):

Quote:

...science is something much broader: the acquisition of reliable knowledge about the world. In some fields, such as chemistry and molecular biology, replicated controlled experiments in the laboratory are feasible and provide by far the most reliable means to acquire knowledge...

Bit further down, talking about his career as a biologist (Diamond has degrees in laboratory biology, biochemistry, and a Ph.D. in physiology, just thought I'd point that out since you were so quick to dismiss him as simply a historian earlier):

Quote:

It's usually neither feasible, legal, nor ethical to gain knowledge about birds by experimentally exterminating or manipulating their populations at one site while maintaining their populations at another site as unmanipulated controls. I had to use different methods. Similar methodological problems arise in many other areas of population biology, as well as in astronomy, epidemiology, geology, and paleontology. A frequent solution is to apply what is termed the "comparative method" or the "natural experiment"-i.e., to compare natural situations differing with respect to the variable of interest.

So are 'population biology, astronomy, epidemiology, geology, and paleontology' not areas of science? Because these fields require the broader definition of science that Diamond gives, not the narrow one you have. The methods used by these scientists are the methods employed by evolution, so by dismissing evolution as not science you dismiss the fields of population biology, astronomy, epidemiology, geology, and paleontology, to name just a few.

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2007 at 7:24pm:

I am not saying we shouldn't study evolution.

Oh? Then what does this mean: "Evolution should not be taught in high school science classes because it is not a scientific theory."

Christianity has made repeated attempts to stifle science as sense accurately points out. Not only this, but you yourself have finally accepted that the ancient greeks were responsible for science, and yet you still say that: "Most famous early scientists were Christians seeking to know God through His work" so what then of the ancient greeks? Isn't it more accurate to say that most early famous scientists were working either before christianity emerged or in entirely separate cultures that were never christian? I mean, we haven't even touched on the Indians, Persians or Chinese. The Indians and Chinese are known to have perfected metallurgy of steels centuries before any european country got started with steel. But of course, the only 'meaningful' science came from christians, right? So lets just forget gunpowder, steel, pottery, architecture and shipbuilding...

My last post about Christianity stifling science was not controvertial. It was a simple fact acknowledge by all reasonable men. Your response illustrates your position well.
It's the equivalent of me saying 2+3=5 and you replying with "history does not back that up - Christians are great". Have you read "Elmer Gantry" by Sinclair Lewis? This forum reminds me of the hypocracy illustrated in that book.

You tell me the simply studying science is not being engaged in science until you do an experiment?

Not exactly. There is a lot to science before you get to the stage of doing an experiment. My definition does not preclude this. It just implies that when you study science, you stick to scientific theories, rather than say mysticism. Otherwise you are studying something else. It does define a field of study in the sense that science is the knowledge that is produced via the scientific method. Studying vs doing just distuinguishes whether you are contributing new knowledge. The distinction I drew is that manipulating a theory via words is language and via equations is maths, but understanding the concept is science.

You dismiss Diamonds work as history

Saying something is history is not dismissing it. Science is not the only form of knowledge or the only branch of philosophy. It is a different kind, that is all. The more you restrict a field of study by raising the bar for what counts as satisfactory 'evidence' the narrower you make the scope, but you end up with more reliable outcomes. I think there is a clear spectrum here with maths at one end, science in the middle and history at the other.

You dismiss Diamonds work as history, not science, and yet he is a biologist and his books are entirely scientific, using very similar methods to those used in evolutionary study

That sentence would make more sense if you used that term 'natural history,' to distuinguish it from the scientific study of natural selection.

methods considered by the scientific community to be valid science

That sentence would have more meaning if you specificed the methods rather than just associating them with certain fields.

Also you have compared your high school text to the ones I have been issued at university, I'll just let that speak for itself.

It doesn't say much if thsoe books don't contradict the high school textbooks. They just avoid the issue, don't they?

Thought experiment is maths as sense has defined maths

No it isn't. It requires people to think about what would happen under natural laws. If it were just maths then there would be no need for a thought experiment. You would just solve the equations. A thought experiment requires people to consider what would actually happen, not just solve an equation. That is what distuinguishes it from maths. When Einstein did his initial thought experiments he completely avoided equations and focused on scientific theory.

are you familiar with the Heisenburg uncertainty principle? It more or less says that all scientific observations cannot accurately describe nature since observing nature influences what is observed.

That is a misapplication of Heisenberg's principle.

Are you familiar with Schrodingers cat? Or Maxwells demon? These are completely non testable experiments because they rely on purely imagined scenarios that could never exist.

Right, they are thought experiments. How much maths is there in deciding whether the cat dies?

The known scientific theories they were based on are only human derived laws that approximate nature, they do not accurately describe it, and thus they are defined by the same description as accurately defines maths.

No, that is what spearates them from maths. Maths is true. Science is an approximation. Also saying that they do not accurately describe nature is meaningless. It's like arguing a piece of string is short rather than long.

And yet everyone considers these to be important scientific experiments?

They are thought experiments designed to teach the concept. They are important edcational tools. For the practicing scientists, the important experiments are the ones that actually attempt to falsify the theories.

To add to this, can you name for me one mathematical field that does not attempt in some way to describe nature?

None of them do. I have already addressed this issue in how mathematicians stick to 'useful' maths. The maths itself does not describe nature anymore than the english language does. You use it as a tool for communication.

There is no reason why new scientific theories won't be 'stumbled upon' in the future

Right, but scientists tend to stumble upon them while engaged in the scientific method. As Kuhn pointed out, theories do not arise from people 'stmbling upon them.' They arise from repeated attempts to figure out why nature does not appear to fit with theory. Even stumbling upon a disagreement between nature and theory itself is usually meaningless as it is discarded as an error on the part of the scientist. It is only when they repeatedly fail to correct that error in their experiments that they start considering alternative theories.

indeed, many scientific theories are stumbled upon all the time, take the discovery of penicillin

This backs up my view. My definition of science does not dictate how theories are developed, only how they are discarded. Furthermore penicillan is not a theory.

In some fields, such as chemistry and molecular biology, replicated controlled experiments in the laboratory are feasible and provide by far the most reliable means to acquire knowledge...

I address this issue of the level of control in an experiment in the article on the scientific method. It agrees with what Diamond says:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/science-methodology.html

Oh? Then what does this mean: "Evolution should not be taught in high school science classes because it is not a scientific theory."

Well for one, it does not mean we shouldn't study evolution. I worded it very carefully.

Christianity has made repeated attempts to stifle science as sense accurately points out.

I am not trying to stifle science. I am promoting it.

"Most famous early scientists were Christians seeking to know God through His work" so what then of the ancient greeks?

Drunk philosophers stumbling upon the obvious beginnings of the various branches of knowledge. They made far more progress in other branches than in science.

I mean, we haven't even touched on the Indians, Persians or Chinese.

I have. As I said, lack of the scientific method is what stalled their development of 'science' in it's infancy.

My last post about Christianity stifling science was not controvertial. It was a simple fact acknowledge by all reasonable men.

I doubt that I disagree with a few specific facts. But you are wrong about the general trends. People like to play up the conflict.

from fd " People like to play up the conflict. "

This is my last comment. So, the conflict between Galileo and the Church didn't happen. People just like to play it up.

Go and say your prayers. You need help from somewhere.

No, but it is not an indication of a pattern. The bulk of the historical evidence points the other way. The Galileo thing gets attention because it was unusual, not because it was the norm. It's like saying that in general, German people like to gas jews.

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2007 at 11:35am:

There is a lot to science before you get to the stage of doing an experiment. My definition does not preclude this. It just implies that when you study science, you stick to scientific theories, rather than say mysticism.

Exactly, and there are more scientific methods than what you detail. I have never said anything about studying mysticism.


Quote:

You dismiss Diamonds work as history Saying something is history is not dismissing it.

You dismissed him though he were not a scientist, and you also say studying history is not scientific, yet history is scientific and Diamond is a scientist.


Quote:

You dismiss Diamonds work as history, not science, and yet he is a biologist and his books are entirely scientific, using very similar methods to those used in evolutionary study That sentence would make more sense if you used that term 'natural history,' to distuinguish it from the scientific study of natural selection.

There is no way to distinguish natural selection from science. It makes no difference if you call it history, science is science, the methods through which history is studied are scientific, I would go so far as to say the entire field of history is within the field of science.


Quote:

methods considered by the scientific community to be valid science That sentence would have more meaning if you specificed the methods rather than just associating them with certain fields.

I did through my quote of Diamond, in particular specifying between the empirical method of testing which you say is the only scientific method, and the observational comparative methods employed by historians, paleontologists and all the others I listed.


Quote:

Also you have compared your high school text to the ones I have been issued at university, I'll just let that speak for itself. It doesn't say much if thsoe books don't contradict the high school textbooks. They just avoid the issue, don't they?

No, they contradict your definition countless times.


Quote:

No it isn't. It requires people to think about what would happen under natural laws.

For one, you fail to demonstrate a single area of maths that is not attempting to describe natural laws, and for another, how is the process of thought experiment not setting up rules and axioms and then defining things within those rules/axioms?


Quote:

are you familiar with the Heisenburg uncertainty principle? It more or less says that all scientific observations cannot accurately describe nature since observing nature influences what is observed. That is a misapplication of Heisenberg's principle.

So you aren't that familiar with it then? This is exactly what the uncertainty principle indicates. Go read up on QM and many new theories that are emerging regarding the inability of humans to actually perceive the reality of nature.


Quote:

Are you familiar with Schrodingers cat? Or Maxwells demon? These are completely non testable experiments because they rely on purely imagined scenarios that could never exist. Right, they are thought experiments. How much maths is there in deciding whether the cat dies?

Isn't maths just setting up a set of rules and then defining and testing logical assertions within that set of rules? This is exactly what a though experiment is.


Quote:

They are thought experiments designed to teach the concept. They are important edcational tools. For the practicing scientists, the important experiments are the ones that actually attempt to falsify the theories.

They are important scientific tools. There is more to science than null hypotheses and experiment, this is what you fail to grasp.


Quote:

To add to this, can you name for me one mathematical field that does not attempt in some way to describe nature? None of them do.

Geometry? Calculus? Algebra? Statistics? Trigonometry, even Topology? Every single area of maths is concerned with describing nature, the ones that are not are simply not maths. Maths has to be absolute, the only way to do this is to limit it to the field of the natural.


Quote:

indeed, many scientific theories are stumbled upon all the time, take the discovery of penicillin This backs up my view. My definition of science does not dictate how theories are developed, only how they are discarded. Furthermore penicillan is not a theory.

There you go again! So a scientific discovery is not science because it is not a theory?
Tell me, are you a scientist? What are your credentials? Have you even studied in the field beyond high school? I have given demonstrations of scientists that disagree with your view, you give me nothing.

You have this idea you want to share with the world, but you fail to find any evidence to back up your idea, I have repeatedly used quotes and examples to back up the claims I make and yet you use not one. Instead you simply tell me you have researched, not good enough buddy, not even close. How can you expect people to take your ideas on board if you cannot even demonstrate that you have researched it? Give me one quote from a scientist that agrees with you on evolution, give me one quote from a scientist that will tell you there is a clear and distinct definition of what science is. You will not find them, because there is NO CLEAR definition of what science is.

I have never said anything about studying mysticism.

You haven't because you haven't given a good definition of science. The vague one you gave earlier appears to include mysticism.

yet history is scientific and Diamond is a sci

Here you go again, confusing the two fields just because an individual engages in both. Remember the hammer and screwdriver?

There is no way to distinguish natural selection from science.

that's what I was saying.

methods through which history is studied are scientific

You can't do an experiment to determine the truth about what happened in the past.

I would go so far as to say the entire field of history is within the field of science.

Yet you continue to use argumentum ad populum?

and the observational comparative methods employed by historians, paleontologists and all the others I listed.

Diamond referred to a natural experiment as the observational comparitive method. This is not a typical tool for historians and its use is fraught with danger for them.

So you aren't that familiar with it then? This is exactly what the uncertainty principle indicates.

No it doesn't.

Isn't maths just setting up a set of rules and then defining and testing logical assertions within that set of rules? This is exactly what a though experiment is.

No it isn't. The set of rules on which a thought experiment are based are scientific theories, which do not have the same logical basis as maths.

There is more to science than null hypotheses and experiment, this is what you fail to grasp.

I didn't say this wasn't the case.

Every single area of maths is concerned with describing nature

As sense pointed out to you, maths can be used to help describe nature, but alone it only describes itself.

So a scientific discovery is not science because it is not a theory?

I didn't say that. Observation forms part of the scientific method.

I have given demonstrations of scientists that disagree with your view, you give me nothing.

Your demonstrations mostly indicate that you do not understand what I am saying.

Instead you simply tell me you have researched, not good enough buddy

No, my views are all based on common knowledge. I am not using my credentials to back up my claims. I am giving them a sound philosophical basis.

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2007 at 2:29pm:

No, my views are all based on common knowledge. I am not using my credentials to back up my claims. I am giving them a sound philosophical basis.

And this is why you fail, and you will always fail. You are a whining crank with nothing to back up your nonsense other than your own slanted opinion.

You are wrong, there is nothing more to it, your views are based on your interpretation of common knowledge, one that scientists do not agree with. You are not a scientist, this much is clear, and as such you have no place to dictate what science is or is not. So long as you continue to say evolution is not science then you fail to understand what both evolution and science really are.

You are wrong, there is nothing more to it, your views are based on your interpretation of common knowledge, one that scientists do not agree with.

But scientists do agree with it. And besides, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

You are not a scientist, this much is clear, and as such you have no place to dictate what science is or is not.

Actually, that would fall to philosophers, not scientists.

Quote:

You can't do an experiment to determine the truth about what happened in the past.

So how do climate scientists do their work? Climate models are almost entirely based on empirical tests of what happened in the past. Is climate change no longer a scientific theory? Paleontologists, how do they conduct scientific work if you simply cannot study the past scientifically? Diamond uses scientific methods throughout his book 'Collapse' to study the truth about the past, or at least propose scientific theories about it, he cites dozens of other scientists that have done the same throughout. You deny mountains of scientific study the title of science if you limit yourself by this stupid remark.

Diamond disagrees with you, the quote again: "science is something much broader: the acquisition of reliable knowledge about the world."


Quote:

But scientists do agree with it. And besides, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

It is kind of a strong argument when you fail to produce one single scientist that agrees with you, you can say they agree with you all you like, but without any proof you are just beating your chest...well...beating something anyway. If my saying the community thinks you are wrong is logical fallacy, then what on earth is your statement that your theory does not require proof?


Quote:

Actually, that would fall to philosophers, not scientists.

So the definition of what is the work of scientists is now in the hands of a bunch of whining liberal arts types, not the scientists themselves? Good one mate, you clearly demonstrate where your head is located by saying this.

You whine about the fact that nobody respects philosophy any more, but you miss the fact that true philosophy has been absorbed into all other fields of study, scientists philosophise about their science as do mathematicians and politicians in their respective fields. Those who study philosophy as a pure subject these days are simply the dregs, the ones who's opinions do not matter any more. Because fields of study are defined by the proponents of those fields of study, not by idiots with poor web design skills who fancy themselves philosophers.

Leave the science to the scientists freediver. You just keep on sniffing those farts...

So how do climate scientists do their work?

They use a mixture of tools.

Climate models are almost entirely based on empirical tests of what happened in the past.

No they aren't. For starters, the tests aren't empirical.

climate change no longer a scientific theory?

Climate change is a scientific theory.

Paleontologists, how do they conduct scientific work if you simply cannot study the past scientifically?

I guess they don't.

Diamond uses scientific methods throughout his book 'Collapse' to study the truth about the past

No he doesn't. He mostly uses analysis techniques typical to historians.

You deny mountains of scientific study the title of science if you limit yourself by this stupid remark.

I deny nothing that is generally regarded as 'modern technology.' Apart from that there are a few bits and pieces that are excluded. Diamond is a classic case of someone who skips between fields. Like switching between the hammer and the screwdriver. You just have to learn tos ee each for what they are.

science is something much broader: the acquisition of reliable knowledge about the world

I agree with that. The method I defined is the only way to aquire reliable knowledge about the world.

then what on earth is your statement that your theory does not require proof?

It is a question of philosophy. It doesn't even make sense to demand proof.

So the definition of what is the work of scientists is now in the hands of a bunch of whining liberal arts types

You do not understand philosophy. Kuhn and Gould were philosophers.

Would you ask a biologist to define physics?

You whine about the fact that nobody respects philosophy any more, but you miss the fact that true philosophy has been absorbed into all other fields of study, scientists philosophise about their science as do mathematicians and politicians in their respective fields.

I haven't missed that at all, except to say it has been absorbed by the people, not the fields.

Science is neither the hammer nor the screwdriver, it is what the man holding both the hammer and the screwdriver does with those tools.

Paleontologists aren't scientists? Glad you finally coughed it up.

Climate models are based for a large part on ice cores that are used to accurately study the past, is that method unscientific? Tree ring sampling, used to study accurately what happened in the past. Is that not science?

This is just becoming laughable freediver, Paleontologists not scientists? ;D ;D

You are no philosopher, you are no scientist, you are some guy with an ugly website and some crap ideas that nobody agrees with. Good day to you.

Paleontologists aren't scientists? Glad you finally coughed it up.

It would be ahrd to say that they are scientists while claiming that evolution is not a scientific theory. However, they still can be scientists. Science is a methodology remember, not a field of study. It would be better to say that paleontology is not science, to the extent it does not employ the scientific method.

Climate models are based for a large part on ice cores that are used to accurately study the past, is that method unscientific?

Actually, no they aren't. You wouldn't be able to tell what was the cart and what was the horse from those samples. They can however be used to test the validity of the models, given that we actually want to avoid doing experiments on the atmosphere.

from fd " People like to play up the conflict. "
No only freediver does that.


"Furthermore penicillan is not a theory."

Yes, it was when it was being invented.

Evolution is diffently a theory. Unless you were there when everything came about. And it being a theory it should be taught in science I'm not sure about creation since it is could be consider too religious. As for  intelligent design toss it.

No only freediver does that.

The evolution vs creationism and ID debates in the US are played up by those eho enjoy the drama, but they achieve nothing. A proper understanding of the philosophical context will put an end to much of the pointless debate.

Yes, it was when it was being invented.

No, the theory was that a certain organism could achieve something useful. The organism iteslef is an organism, not a theory.

And it being a theory it should be taught in science

ID is also a theory. Does that mean it should be taught in science?

The following quote is from Peter Jay, in "The Wealth of Man," 1st edition, 2000, introduction page XXIII, The Task Defined. It highlights the fundamental qualitative difference between history and science, why science cannot be apllied to historical questions, and why the methods used by historians are not as reliable as the modern scientific method. This is not an attempt to define science or history, it is just an attempt to put his work in the proper philosophical context in a way that is familiar to scientists, historians and economists.

Historians will never become pure social scientists because the need for narrative, the complexity of the matter they study and the impossibility of repeatable experiment all ensure that the human story will never be finally boiled down to a finite list of stable laws.

also, earlier in the section:

"Cultural factors" may be decisive, but it is hard to prove them, and nasty prejudices may lurk in their undergrowth camouflaged in respectabel languge.

Yes, it was when it was being invented.

No, the theory was that a certain organism could achieve something useful. The organism iteslef is an organism, not a theory.

Yea, yea, yea, and this was that and that was this. That was assumed.

And it being a theory it should be taught in science

ID is also a theory. Does that mean it should be taught in science?[/quote]

There is more eveidence of the the evolution theory then there is in
intelligent design. So  I don't think it should if so then why not creation also?

So  I don't think it should if so then why not creation also?

The thing is, once you let evolution into science, you have no valid reason for excluding a whole heap of other obviously non-scientific theories. Being similar to religion is not a valid reason to reject a theory as science is not inherently anti-theistic. The quantity of evidence is also not a valid way to distinguish between sicentific and non-scientific theories.

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2007 at 9:26am:

Historians will never become pure social scientists because the need for narrative, the complexity of the matter they study and the impossibility of repeatable experiment all ensure that the human story will never be finally boiled down to a finite list of stable laws. also, earlier in the section: "Cultural factors" may be decisive, but it is hard to prove them, and nasty prejudices may lurk in their undergrowth camouflaged in respectabel languge.

Cultural factors? Narrative? Human history? The relevance of this is....what? You didn't just miss the mark here freediver, you turned around and shot in the opposite direction! The author makes the distinction...and you completely missed it.

What cultural factors are relevant when you are digging up bones, counting their number and arrangement, measuring for size and then classifying species based on these observations? Evidence laid out millions of years ago, but often only thousands or hundreds. What cultural factors are relevant when you dig up rocks, analyze their composition, water content, geographic location then postulate scientific theories on how they were created? Evidence laid out millions of years ago, but often only thousands or hundreds. What cultural factors and narrative are relevant to the study of photos cast out from stars billions of years ago that have only just reached our earth? This is the empirical study of history and is relevant to many areas of science.

You see now freediver you have confused the distinction between the natural and the human. Yes, you cannot scientifically study the narrative, the culture, the human perspective of history, but evolution makes no attempt at this, please enlighten me as to where it does if you disagree? There is a clear cut distinction between human history and natural history. natural can be studied with science and is every day in the areas of geology, climate science, evolution, astrology and many many more.

There is nothing different about the construction of theories of evolution and the construction of theories of geology, or the construction of theories of climate change. All of them make attempts to empirically study what is found buried in the earth as remnants of the past, then compare this data to current day observations and postulate theories based on this scientific study.

How do you do repeated controlled experiment on the formation of rocks when the geological cycles that create then last eons and exist under forces that humans cannot replicate? How do you do repeated controlled experiment on what is happening at stars, quasars, nebulae and black holes billions of light years away from us? How do you do repeated controlled experiment on ice cores that formed millions of years ago? There are ways freediver, but they employ scientific methods that differ to what it is you think science is. The thing is the scientific community regards these methods as scientific. You do not... hmm, let me think here...

The thing is, once you limit the definition of science, you have no valid reason for keeping a whole heap of other obviously scientific theories...

Newsflash freediver, evolution is regarded as a scientific theory by the community and the quality of scientific study has not been compromised by it, quite the contrary.

And I'm still waiting for some evidence of a scientist who agrees with you about evolution?

The author makes the distinction...and you completely missed it.

Yes he does.

What cultural factors are relevant when you...

Perhaps you missed the bit about repeatable experiments and nasty prejudices.

There is nothing different about the construction of theories of evolution and the construction of theories of geology, or the construction of theories of climate change.

Yes there is. Some are scientific, some aren't.

All of them make attempts to empirically study

No they don't, not all of them.

How do you do repeated controlled experiment on the formation of rocks when the geological cycles that create then last eons and exist under forces that humans cannot replicate? How do you do repeated controlled experiment on what is happening at stars, quasars, nebulae and black holes billions of light years away from us?

Luckily, most of the theories about what governs their motion can be tested on a much smaller scale.

How do you do repeated controlled experiment on ice cores that formed millions of years ago?

You can't.

The thing is, once you limit the definition of science, you have no valid reason for keeping a whole heap of other obviously scientific theories...

List them. So far the only theory that it omits is evolution.

Newsflash freediver, evolution is regarded as a scientific theory by the community

Then why is it called natural history rather than science?

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2007 at 6:07pm:

Then why is it called natural history rather than science?

It's natural history because nature is involved. lol

To the question topic asked: Are maths and science the same thing? NO

Maths are absolute and science is not.

Culture factors and nasty prejudices?? I'm confused must be getting mystical. lol

History is riddled with racism masquerading as substantiated fact.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2007 at 6:07pm:

What cultural factors are relevant when you... Perhaps you missed the bit about repeatable experiments and nasty prejudices.

...when dealing with cultural factors, narrative and human history yes you would be correct. But that is not the topic of debate.

When dealing with nature alone, history can be studied scientifically and is...repeatedly...every day...by scientists.

When a geologist tells you Australia separated from Antarctica 120 million years ago, do you think that is based in non scientific study? Because that is a scientific theory of what happened in the past.

When you are told how old the earth is, the sun, the stars and the universe, do you think these concepts are based in non scientific study? Because these are again scientific theories of what happened in the past

Natural history is just another way of describing a type of scientific study.


Quote:

List them.

Geology, astrology, climate science, natural selection (ie evolution). And many more that I could dig up if it was worth wasting my time. But it isn't, you are obviously too ignorant to recognise what is science and what is not.

astrology  :o

I hope you meant astronomy  ;D

When dealing with nature alone, history can be studied scientifically and is...repeatedly...every day...by scientists.

Sure, scientists also read the paper. They don't do it scientifically. Just because a 'scientist' does something doesn't make it scientific. Again, you missed the whole point. Jay basically said that history is not science because it isn't based on repeatable experiment. Just like evolution. The pitfalls he describes for people studying human history also apply to people studying natural history.

When a geologist tells you Australia separated from Antarctica 120 million years ago, do you think that is based in non scientific study?

Sure, it's a question of history. I'm sure the theories it is based on are scientific though. Most of them anyway. Tell me, when you put your dinner in the microwave are you doing science, or just taking advantage of knowledge and technology gained through the scientific method?

Geology, astrology, climate science, natural selection (ie evolution).

Go back and read the comment I was responding to. Geology is not a theory. Astrology  ;D is not a theory. Climate change is (depending on how you interpret it, you are very vague) and it is scientific. Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution isn't. List the theories. Not the fields of study. It is by grouping too many theories in the one basket that certain people try to pass off non-scientific theories as scientific. It is a logical fallacy, trying to generalise to the point of ambiguity so the question becomes meaningless.

wrote on Apr 26^th, 2007 at 6:04pm:

astrology  :o I hope you meant astronomy  ;D

lol, yeah... that one ;)

freediver you're a douche...you are twisting meanings and twisting words. Natural history is studied in scientific ways, no stupid analogy about microwaves, hammers or screwdrivers will change that. Your microwave analogy misses the point the way you history quote totally missed the point. You are producing spin, nothing more.

Evolution is tested endlessly through repeated experiment, you yourself acknowledge that natural selection is science, well you can't separate natural selection from evolution buddy, to do so is just spinning the truth.

So, got any evidence of a scientist that agrees with you yet? Because just between you and me, I'll leave the definitions of what is or is not science up to the scientists.

natural history is studied in scientific ways

No it isn't. It is studied using the methods employed by historians.

well you can't separate natural selection from evolution buddy

Yes you can. It is quite easy.

So, got any evidence of a scientist that agrees with you yet.

Of course they agree with me. Let's start with wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy.

Hmm, sorry mate, last I checked wikipedia was not a scientist, neither is that article about a scientist.

Evolution meets the requirements of scientific method, as do other areas of natural history such as geology and astronomy. But lets just forget evolution for a second and go back to biology, when a biologist digs up a fossil, uses geological methods to determine its age, then measures properties of that fossil and classifies it according to standard biological methods, he is studying history according to the scientific method. You can spin it all you like freediver but this is a fact. He may then go on to construct a theory that other examples of this species are likely to be found in areas surrounding his location in similar geological situations. An observation is made, a theory constructed which can then be tested by digging at likely sites where other examples of this fossil might be found.

Where is the narrative? The human story? This is an example of scientific method as it is applied daily, all over the globe, by scientists, to the area of natural history.

Hmm, sorry mate, last I checked wikipedia was not a scientist, neither is that article about a scientist.

Right, but it would be pretty absurd to argue that not a single scientist agrees with wikipedia's defnition of science. Maybe they just haven't noticed it yet?

Evolution meets the requirements of scientific method

Which requirements? You keep switching between arguing that my definition of science is wrong and that evolution is falsifiable.

But lets just forget evolution for a second and go back to biology, when a biologist digs up a fossil, uses geological methods to determine its age, then measures properties of that fossil and classifies it according to standard biological methods, he is studying history according to the scientific method.

No, he is studying history using 'historical' methods. You cannot argue that when a historian does that with an old parchment it is a different method to when a biologist does it with a bone.

He may then go on to construct a theory that other examples of this species are likely to be found in areas surrounding his location in similar geological situations.

Sure, but it wouldn't be a scientific theory.

Where is the narrative? The human story?

I didn't say there was one. You are ignoring the relevant part of the quote. I even put it in bold for you in case you missed it. When you asked for a scientists who agreed with me, I didn't think you would insist on one who parroted me word for word.

This is an example of scientific method as it is applied daily, all over the globe, by scientists, to the area of natural history.

I think this would get resolved a lot quicker if you would follow up on some of the details rather than switching back to the broad statements all the time.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2007 at 6:32pm:

Which requirements? You keep switching between arguing that my definition of science is wrong and that evolution is falsifiable.

I believe both. Your definition is incorrect as you seem to think history cannot have the scientific method applied to it, thus you definition of the scientific method is either wrong or you interpret it too narrowly. At the same time evolution does meet the strict requirements you set out.

You are just wrong on both counts.


Quote:

No, he is studying history using 'historical' methods. You cannot argue that when a historian does that with an old parchment it is a different method to when a biologist does it with a bone.

Studying the narrative on the parchment is history, analysing the chemical composition of the parchment and radiocarbon dating the parchment are scientific methods. The distinction is clear, you are the one who is getting things mixed up.

Go tell a biologist they are not studying science, or a geologist or an astronomer, and be prepared to straighten your nose out after they break it because you are telling people their life's work in science is not actually science... that would piss me of a tad.

Quote:

I think this would get resolved a lot quicker if you would follow up on some of the details rather than switching back to the broad statements all the time.

;D Oh isn't that the pot calling the kettle black...This issue will be resolved when you acknowledge that you fly in the face of the scientific community. You are wrong, and while I know you have confessed you are incapable of ever admitting you are wrong, so really this is pointless, I am challenging your argument in the public arena...for me that is enough (not that your ideas have any following that needs to be put down).

The thing is freediver, for many years now I have been a very close follower of developments in science, science news, current theory, historical theory and the general history and development of science and technology. I have a subscription to new scientist, I read as many different science news websites as I can find, and have done for years, and I take the time to read up on scientific methods, theories and technological developments that arise out of them. I have immersed myself in science since I can remember. The biggest problem with your idea on evolution is that there is no debate amongst the scientific community about the merits of evolution as a scientific theory. In fact it is rarely even regarded as a theory any more, most scientists simply call it a law of nature. There is no debate. There is some debate as to the merits of natural selection, some believe that it is not possible to apply a null hypothesis to it, but these scientists are on the fringe if that. This only further decimates your position as you are here saying the opposite. Evolution is regarded as on of the most well tested theories that has been produced, second possibly to QM, and much more well tested than relativity, which is suprisingly a poorly tested theory, although it fares well against those tests that are thrown at it. There is debate about what constitutes scientific theory, it is not as though scientists are not out there dismissing the useless theories - read up on string theory, there is strong debate going on right now as to whether it can be classed as science or not. This is not the case with evolution. Basically, if you interpret the scientific method in such a way as to come to the conclusion that evolution or indeed all aspects of history cannot be studied scientifically, then you have misinterpreted the scientific method. It is simple.

The scientific community you could say are well aware of the philosophies of the scientific method, and the vast majority of them agree that evolution fits extremely well within the bounds of rigorous scientific method. Again, there simply is no debate among scientists and you cannot bring me evidence of any (although I always knew this would be the case). So all you are saying is that all those PHD's, those researchers and philosophers who have trained in science for years on end, who bring us so many wonderful pieces of technology and medicine and so on, while they get so much right, they are wrong in this one case...and nobody but freediver is out there challenging the accepted position... right.  ::)

Your definition is incorrect as you seem to think history cannot have the scientific method applied to it, thus you definition of the scientific method is either wrong or you interpret it too narrowly.

That is a non-sequitor.

At the same time evolution does meet the strict requirements you set out.

I believe we went into some detail on this and I showed how the examples you gave were wrong, but you keep reverting back to generalisations instead of whether it does actually satisfy the requirement.

This issue will be resolved when you acknowledge that you fly in the face of the scientific community.

Like I said, I do not, and argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. You seem to be getting further and further away from discussing the issue in any depth.

and while I know you have confessed you are incapable of ever admitting you are wrong

quote me

I am challenging your argument in the public arena

but you aren't actually challenging it. Merely contradicting it and then getting halfway through the debate before reverting back to simply contradicting it without any substance is not a meaningful challenge.

The biggest problem with your idea on evolution is that there is no debate amongst the scientific community about the merits of evolution as a scientific theory.

My idea is not about the merits of the theory of evolution.

In fact it is rarely even regarded as a theory any more, most scientists simply call it a law of nature.

No they don't.

The scientific community you could say are well aware of the philosophies of the scientific method, and the vast majority of them agree that evolution fits extremely well within the bounds of rigorous scientific method.

No they are not aware. As Kuhn pointed out this is not even necessary and rarely plays a role in 'normal science.' You certainly have no grounds on which to claim that the vast majority agree that evolution is a scientific theory. You are being hypocritical in demanding that I find scientists who agree with me when I have not based my argument on anyone's credentials, while at the same time basing your argument on absurd claims of some kind of consensus in the scientific community which does not exist and which you have zero evidence for.

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2007 at 11:17pm:

At the same time evolution does meet the strict requirements you set out. I believe we went into some detail on this and I showed how the examples you gave were wrong, but you keep reverting back to generalisations instead of whether it does actually satisfy the requirement.

You showed nothing, I gave you a ton of evidence and you just said "No that's not science". You did not point to one single detail once. As soon as you do, I might consider taking this discussion to some more detailed level, but you have not once actually proved how any specific example I gave does not meet the requirements of the scientific method.


Quote:

This issue will be resolved when you acknowledge that you fly in the face of the scientific community. Like I said, I do not, and argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. You seem to be getting further and further away from discussing the issue in any depth.

I guess democracy is a logical fallacy then?

The minute you come back with any detailed response to countless examples I already provided I will consider taking this deeper, but you haven't, it is you that is keeping this debate shallow.


Quote:

and while I know you have confessed you are incapable of ever admitting you are wrong quote me

ok...

Quote:

Saying someone is partially right is just an excuse for not being able to demonstrate why they are completely wrong.

Quote:

it shows strength in character to be able to admit to the weaknesses in your own arguments. No it doesn't. It shows that you are too lazy to get to the bottom of the disagreement.

and so on...


Quote:

I am challenging your argument in the public arena but you aren't actually challenging it. Merely contradicting it and then getting halfway through the debate before reverting back to simply contradicting it without any substance is not a meaningful challenge.

I have given you a pile of substance, to which you have replied "that is wrong" and gone no deeper than simply stating it. Why on earth should I bother to provide any more evidence when you insist on sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating the same rhetoric without any substance of your own?

You repeatedly claim that nobody can actually point out why certain pieces of evidence prove you wrong, and yet I have repeatedly demonstrated this. You say history cannot be studied empirically, I told you that is wrong and gave evidence of why it is wrong, you simply said 'no'. That is not evidence freediver, that is just pig headedness. No matter how much evidence I give you coupled with solid arguments as to why your claims are wrong you just say 'no it isn't'...why on earth would I bother to continue to give you solid evidence and argument if you won't even meet it head on? Sidestepping the evidence and just stating that it is wrong is a stupid tactic.


Quote:

The biggest problem with your idea on evolution is that there is no debate amongst the scientific community about the merits of evolution as a scientific theory. My idea is not about the merits of the theory of evolution.

Oh really?


Quote:

In fact it is rarely even regarded as a theory any more, most scientists simply call it a law of nature. No they don't.

Proof? Because as I said, I read a helluva lot of science journals and I don't see much debate about whether or not evolution is science. Plenty of debate about other theories...


Quote:

No they are not aware. As Kuhn pointed out this is not even necessary and rarely plays a role in 'normal science.' You certainly have no grounds on which to claim that the vast majority agree that evolution is a scientific theory.

There you go again, all the scientists of the world do not know what science is and yet freediver does and he has come to save them from their ignorance. Has it ever occurred to you that these people know Kuhn well, they know all the philosophy behind the scientific method and still believe evolution is science?


Quote:

You are being hypocritical in demanding that I find scientists who agree with me when I have not based my argument on anyone's credentials, while at the same time basing your argument on absurd claims of some kind of consensus in the scientific community which does not exist and which you have zero evidence for.

I have provided ample proof, there is a ton of debate between scientists and religious cranks about whether or not evolution is science, the vast majority of scientists agree that evolution is an undeniable law of nature.

But hey if you need more evidence:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hO8vHTSiBkAC&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&dq=evolution%2Btheory+or+law&ots=1oq5nRz-r9&sig=d8stSU4hJVsZ8gpxFiWPWkR38TM#PPP9,M1
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/71/7/2843
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/71/8/3028
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/gould.html
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=758&m=1
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=751&m=1

I could provide many more but you need to either be a subscriber to the journals or a student with access to the journal databases...

If you took the time freediver (heres a hint!) you would find articles which support your view...you only make yourself look like an idiot by refusing to do so..

You showed nothing, I gave you a ton of evidence and you just said "No that's not science".

That's not true. I explained it for you. You repeated the evidence. I explained it again. You didn't accept my explanation so you pretended it didn't exist.

You did not point to one single detail once.

There was no need to after I had done the same thing many times already. They all appeared to 'fail' for the same reason. You seem to have a strange view of how this sort of debate works. You can't just link to pages and apges of marginally relevant 'evidence' and expect me to go through every detail and explain again why it isn't relevant. That's not how it works. Instead, I say why they appear to not back up your view, then if you disagree you pull out an example. Or better yet, pull out the best example first.

but you have not once actually proved how any specific example I gave does not meet the requirements of the scientific method

Yes I have. I just haven't repeated the same process over and over again for you. I explained why they all failed. You ignored that and found a different example of the same 'kind'. Rather than finding more and more pieces of evidence that show the same thing, you should have responded to my explanation as to why they don't disprove me. That would have moved the deabte forward.

I guess democracy is a logical fallacy then?

No democracy is a form of government. It's the worst form, except for all the others. What is a logical fallacy is to assume that any government policy is just or right because it was arrived at through democracy.

Please link to where those quotes are from. I believe you got them out of order.

I have given you a pile of substance, to which you have replied "that is wrong" and gone no deeper than simply stating it.

Wrong. I did go deeper. You just got upset because I could exclude all thse pages of evidence with a simple explanation. You did not give me a pile of 'substance,' you gave me a pile of irrelevant details.

You say history cannot be studied empirically, I told you that is wrong and gave evidence of why it is wrong, you simply said 'no'.

No, I explained why. You backed away from that explanation in favour of misrepresenting what I said.

Proof? Because as I said, I read a helluva lot of science journals and I don't see much debate about whether or not evolution is science. Plenty of debate about other theories...

You missed the point - which you brought up yourself. It was about whether it was regarded as law, not science. You made an absurd claim which you cannot back up. Furthermore, the lack of debate does not mean anything, except that you were looking in science journals and wondering why there were no articles on philosophy there.

There you go again, all the scientists of the world do not know what science is and yet freediver does and he has come to save them from their ignorance.

That is a strawman and you know it.

there is a ton of debate between scientists and religious cranks about whether or not evolution is science

No there is't. There si debate about whether it is true. That first link you provided didn't even work.

the vast majority of scientists agree that evolution is an undeniable law of nature

There you go again. You have absolutely no evidence to back this up. Do you realise that in order to show that a 'vast majority' agree with you, you need more than just a few links that seem to agree with you.

Zoso, you and others have provided many examples of 'evidence' that supposedly contradicts me. I have explained why it doesn't contradict me. Rather than following on from that, you went and found more of the same evidence, then gave links to that evidence without even explaining why it is relevant. That is simply not how debates work. You don't just give links and expect the other person to figure out why you still think that link is relvant. That just shows that you don't understand the argument you are engaged in. If you can't explain it yourself, then a link to something that is even less relevant and written by someone who was not responding to the same question or statement is not going to help.

If you took the time freediver (heres a hint!) you would find articles which support your view...you only make yourself look like an idiot by refusing to do so..

Here you show your misunderstanding of how debates work. As you acknowledge, we can both find other people who agree with us. What is the point then of simply finding lots of articles that agree with us? It goes nowhere. I'm not sure how many times I have said this, but I will say it again. I'll even put it in bold in case you missed it all those other times:

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

Perhaps we need to start a new thread on that for you so you can stop trying to sidetrack this discussion with logical fallacies.

Zoso remember how you 'gave up' on the evolution discussion in the other thread. Then you came back, but rather than picking up where we left off, you got into the same discussion on a different thread (this one). The only problem is that instead of continuing the discussion you started by misrepresenting my view in this thread. It hasn't really gotten any further since as I have spent most of the time trying to point out your strawmen. Perhaps if you went back to the other thread it would be a good start. YOu can leave this one for the discussion of the maths/science question.

I see now freediver, evidence is irrelevant even if it clearly demonstrates the ways in which evolution is tested empirically, using the very same scientific method you describe. I'm sorry I should have known that evidence which contradicts your assertions is logically irrelevant, how silly of me.

Also, you have never once taken one of my examples and explained clearly what part of the study is not empirical. Not once, no matter how many times you repeat yourself there is no written evidence of you ever having done that.

Finally, I am not making attempts at argumentum ad populum, I am trying to demonstrate that those people who are trained in the field of science, who know the scientific method well, much more intimately than you do, believe that evolution meets the standards of scientific method.

My point is simple... Take note of what scientists have to say about this topic because clearly you are not one of them.

I would not go out and tell my doctor how to treat my diseases... I urge you to consider the same wisdom here.

I see now freediver, evidence is irrelevant even if it clearly demonstrates the ways in which evolution is tested empirically, using the very same scientific method you describe.

Your vagueness is getting in the way of rational debate. By 'evidence' do you mean other people's opinions, or the other evidence which you link to without even bothering to say how it is relevant?

Also, you have never once taken one of my examples and explained clearly what part of the study is not empirical. Not once, no matter how many times you repeat yourself there is no written evidence of you ever having done that.

Yes I have. Of course, establishing this would not be necessary if you didn't keep refusing to go back to the 'evidence.' How come if you have this evidence that contradicts me, you are so vague about it?

Finally, I am not making attempts at argumentum ad populum, I am trying to demonstrate that those people who are trained in the field of science, who know the scientific method well, much more intimately than you do, believe that evolution meets the standards of scientific method.

Here you go again, ignoring my response to the first time you made this claim. It is a question of philosophy, not science. As Kuhn pointed out, scientists are not always equipped with the philosophical groundings of their field of study, nor is it necessary for normal science.

My point is simple... Take note of what scientists have to say about this topic because clearly you are not one of them.

You have already said that it is easy to find some who agree with me and some who agree with you. I have no problem if you borrow their arguments, but simply deferring to other people is pointless.

How about isntead of complaining that I am ignoring the evidence you present, you go back to the original thread about this topic (the one you walked away from) and repost the best example of contradictory evidence, and we take it up from there? Surely that would be better than pages and pages of arguing over who ignored who first. You claim you made the last valid point and I ignored you. I claim it was the other way round. That is why I have been trying to get you to return to making those points. You are avoiding the real debate and instead only discussing who first avoided the real debate.

Just do us all a favour and make the arguments yourself. Don't link to 'evidence' and assume people will understand why you think it is relevant. That is lazy and impolite. Explain what the link shows in your own words.

Quote:

How about isntead of complaining that I am ignoring the evidence you present, you go back to the original thread about this topic (the one you walked away from) and repost the best example of contradictory evidence, and we take it up from there? Surely that would be better than pages and pages of arguing over who ignored who first. You claim you made the last valid point and I ignored you. I claim it was the other way round. That is why I have been trying to get you to return to making those points. You are avoiding the real debate and instead only discussing who first avoided the real debate.

Nah... I agree that we disagree. More than anything really I want you to acknowledge that this is not a black and white, clear cut issue. But I think you have.

This is pointless, we should both be using our heads to inform people about relevant issues... whether or not either one of us is right here is inconsequential. Evolution will never be removed from school science curriculum as you want it to be, and whether one of us concedes defeat or not will not change the work that scientists are doing.

I shall bow and take my leave from this debate.

Nah... I agree that we disagree. More than anything really I want you to acknowledge that this is not a black and white, clear cut issue. But I think you have.

I acknowledged that it is a philosophical question.

Evolution will never be removed from school science curriculum as you want it to be

It has been before in the US. Just for the wrong reasons. What they did in the UK is a good alternative.

and whether one of us concedes defeat or not will not change the work that scientists are doing.

Indeed, whether the community as a whole decides one way or the other won't change the actual work being done.

"Are maths and science the same thing?"

No.  One is a derivative of the other.

:P

Senexx wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 7:05pm:

"Are maths and science the same thing?" No.  One is a derivative of the other.

They both seem to come down to philosophy, and they also merge with religion when the hardest questions are asked.
It makes it all the more interesting.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:56pm:

According to zoso they are. I disagree. For example, maths has proofs, science doesn't. The entire field of maths can be built from entirely human constructs, whereas science always seeks to explain or model nature. If it has any resemblance to nature, maths is abstracted from it so that it can be built on proofs.

Western science and mats is the same because they both are based on a logical way of thinking called Aristotle’s syllogism. That’s why Western civilisation is reaching its limits and has to disappear. Other human capabilities like inspiration and intuition have been totally neglected in favor of dogmatic strictly rational way of thinking in almost all aspects of life. In such environment, more and more, training replaces education, conformistic intelligence replaces creativity and ready made knowledge replaces critical way of thinking.

Are you suggesting that a greater focus on intuition and creativity will enhance critical thinking? Critical thinking is a skill. It has to be trained, otherwise you end up with the intellectual laziness of those who think intuition can solve everything. There is a lot more to critical thinking than being brave enough to reject what someone tells you, which is about as far as a focus on inspiration will get you. For example the following claim: "Western science and mats is the same because they both are based on...." is very creative, but does not stand up to critical analysis. Since when are two fields of philosophy the same merely because it is based on the same thing?

All approaches to knowledge require indoctrination. The success of maths and science has nothing to do with that indoctrination, which is common to all approaches, but is down to the inherent value of the methods they use - methods which happen to be different, despite the arm waving 'intuitive' link to Aristotle's syllogism.

BTW, can you explain how science is based on Aristotle's syllogism?

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 3:34pm:

Are you suggesting that a greater focus on intuition and creativity will enhance critical thinking? Critical thinking is a skill. It has to be trained, otherwise you end up with the intellectual laziness of those who think intuition can solve everything. There is a lot more to critical thinking than being brave enough to reject what someone tells you, which is about as far as a focus on inspiration will get you. For example the following claim: "Western science and mats is the same because they both are based on...." is very creative, but does not stand up to critical analysis. Since when are two fields of philosophy the same merely because it is based on the same thing? All approaches to knowledge require indoctrination. The success of maths and science has nothing to do with that indoctrination, which is common to all approaches, but is down to the inherent value of the methods they use - methods which happen to be different, despite the arm waving 'intuitive' link to Aristotle's syllogism. BTW, can you explain how science is based on Aristotle's syllogism?

I am saying what I said and it is not my problem because you with your limited Anglo-Saxon dogmatic rationalism can not comprehend what I've said. I was very specific by saying: “Other human capabilities like inspiration and intuition have been totally neglected in favour of dogmatic strictly rational way of thinking in almost all aspects of life”.  
Obviously, like many others, you have little education and plenty of training that prevents you to be free minded and think creatively. Western strictly rational way of thinking (which is yours as well) is very primitive because relies only on few human senses and limited usage of brain in understanding reality.
The problem is not in what you are and what you know the problem is in what,(with your ignorance and arrogance), you think you are.
Do you know that there are also spiritual intelligence, emotional intelligence, impulse intelligence and other human intelligence in which you have not been trained in.
Everything what is "obvious" does not mean to be real and true.
The free minded common sense and modern physics tell us that everything what human can imagine already exists in one of infinite number of dimensions of reality.
And finally there are things that are beyond physical survival and pleasure of happiness.

If you want to find out more about other aspects of human capabilities like inspiration and intuition I suggest you to study eastern philosophy what of course, in your unlimited arrogance, you are not going to do because in your opinion “West is the best”.

So you can't explain how science is based on Aristotle's syllogism?

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 10:14pm:

So you can't explain how science is based on Aristotle's syllogism?

The whole mathematics is based on:

1. A cripple syllogism or axiom because of only one statement and one conclusion:
If  a=b (statement)
then b=a (conclusion)

2. Full syllogism:
If a=b (statement 1)
If b=c (Statement 2)
Then a=c (Conclusion)

Before introduction of zero Mathematics was just an accounting.  
With zero mathematics was lifted on level of Philosophy
First concept of zero was introduced by Indian Philosophers thousand years ago before adopted in Middle East and then much later brought to Europe by students who studded at Medina University. Once when you have zero you have to deal with infinity and then philosophically (not mathematically) ask yourself what is nothing and what is everything and so on and so on.
The point here is that Indian philosophers didn’t use western rational way of thinking or syllogism to come up with such genius thing they applied intuition, inspiration, spiritual intelligence and all other human capacities, unrecognized by the West.
It’s nothing new, thousand years ago India had similar rationalist and skeptic philosophers (like for example Charvaca) who were scorned both by Hindu and Buddhist philosophers as the lowest of the low.  
To study western knowledge you can just go to the library grab the book regardless of spiritual state of your soul and mind. You cold be overweight, greedy, liar, immoral it does not matter all of this can be rationally justified as Dostoyevski’s Grand Inquisitor (”Brothers Karamazov”) did. On the other hand t study eastern wisdom by initiating intuition and inspiration you also have to perform meditation, fasting and so on. Because of this it is very difficult and unnecessary to distinguish eastern philosophy and science from religion.
The problem is that West took for granted and copied ancient Greek science without developing own fundamental and original approach which anyway would be considered as a waste of time  in capitalist environment.    
Some of the great scientists like Nikola Tesla were aware about limitations of strictly rational western way of thinking that unnecessary slow human progress.
He was not burned like Giordano Bruno but pronounced as extremely odd and eccentric by dogmatic western scientific establishment.

So you can't explain how science is based on Aristotle's syllogism?

You appear to be agreeing with me that science and maths are different, and using Aristotle's syllogism to highlight the difference. Am I misunderstanding your original claim?


Quote:

Western science and mats is the same because they both are based on a logical way of thinking called Aristotle’s syllogism.

freediver wrote on Dec 26^th, 2009 at 10:09am:

So you can't explain how science is based on Aristotle's syllogism? You appear to be agreeing with me that science and maths are different, and using Aristotle's syllogism to highlight the difference. Am I misunderstanding your original claim? Quote: Western science and mats is the same because they both are based on a logical way of thinking called Aristotle’s syllogism.

Quantum Mechanics is an example of a branch of science that is largely based on mathematics. In common with most branches of science, it uses mathematics to describe reality.

However similar the two disciplines are in some respects, they are not the same. Mathematics is a tool  for reasoning, and, in common with science, it represents a collection of the results of collective thought and reasoning over the years.  

By using mathematics it is possible to connect one statement to another. For rexample, I can say that the gravtitational force is directed towards the sun. I can also tell you that the Earth moves so that if I draw a line from the sun to the planet, and draw another line at some definite period, like three weeks, later, then the area that is swung out by the planet is exactly the same as it will be in the next three weeks, and the next three weeks, and so on as it goes around the sun. In that way, I can use mathematics as an accurate prediction of orbital parameters at some future time.

Is mathematics possible without science? Yes.

Is science possible without mathematics? No.

Is "Are mathematics and science the same thing?" a meaningful question? No

freediver wrote on Dec 26^th, 2009 at 10:09am:

So you can't explain how science is based on Aristotle's syllogism? You appear to be agreeing with me that science and maths are different, and using Aristotle's syllogism to highlight the difference. Am I misunderstanding your original claim? Quote: Western science and mats is the same because they both are based on a logical way of thinking called Aristotle’s syllogism.

I thought that the first REAL scientist was Galileo Galilei. He was the first to use a methodical observational process that gave verifiable results.

Sappho wrote on Dec 27^th, 2009 at 7:34am:

freediver wrote on Dec 26th, 2009 at 10:09am: So you can't explain how science is based on Aristotle's syllogism? You appear to be agreeing with me that science and maths are different, and using Aristotle's syllogism to highlight the difference. Am I misunderstanding your original claim? Quote: Western science and mats is the same because they both are based on a logical way of thinking called Aristotle’s syllogism. I thought that the first REAL scientist was Galileo Galilei. He was the first to use a methodical observational process that gave verifiable results.

The Ancient Greeks had some very famous scientists, including Aristotle, Archimedes and Eratosthones - who calculated the diameter of the Earth. The ancient Egyptians had the astronomer Ptolemy, although he was graeco-roman.

The Arabs had Alhazen, Ibn Al-Baitar and many more.  

The Romans had a few too - Pliny the Elder and Martianus Capella spring to mind, although the latter had a liking for pseudoscience.

freediver wrote on Dec 26^th, 2009 at 10:09am:

So you can't explain how science is based on Aristotle's syllogism? You appear to be agreeing with me that science and maths are different, and using Aristotle's syllogism to highlight the difference. Am I misunderstanding your original claim? Quote: Western science and mats is the same because they both are based on a logical way of thinking called Aristotle’s syllogism.

You know what, with you it’s getting nowhere. To continue communication, first, we have to answer very important philosophical question: What is older your ignorance or your arrogance because you always keep them together?

“To study western knowledge you can just go to the library grab the book regardless of spiritual state of your soul and mind. You cold be overweight, greedy, liar, immoral and ignorant not having respect for others it does not matter all of this can be rationally justified as Dostoyevski’s Grand Inquisitor (”Brothers Karamazov”) did. On the other hand t study eastern wisdom by initiating intuition and inspiration you also have to perform meditation, fasting and so on. Because of this it is very difficult and unnecessary to distinguish eastern philosophy and science from religion.”
Simply saying you are still incomplete.

So to continue, I cannot ask you to explain anything you post. We must merely delve deeper and deeper into athosism and disregard all that makes no sense along the way?

Can you explain how science is based on Aristotle's syllogism?

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 6:07pm:

So to continue, I cannot ask you to explain anything you post. We must merely delve deeper and deeper into athosism and disregard all that makes no sense along the way? Can you explain how science is based on Aristotle's syllogism?

Aristotle's Syllogism is basically deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning forms an intrinsic part of science. In the scientific method, it's point 3, and that can be as simple or as complex as you like.

In a nutshell:

1. Gather data
2. Hypothesize an explanation for the observations.
3. Deduce a consequence of that explanation (a prediction). Formulate an experiment to see if the predicted consequence is observed.
4. Wait for corroboration. If there is corroboration, go to step 3. If not, the hypothesis is falsified. Go to step 2.

Amadd wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2009 at 10:27pm:

Senexx wrote on Dec 20th, 2009 at 7:05pm: "Are maths and science the same thing?" No.  One is a derivative of the other. They both seem to come down to philosophy, and they also merge with religion when the hardest questions are asked. It makes it all the more interesting.

Ultimately, yes.  However, that is not the question under discussion.

muso wrote on Dec 29^th, 2009 at 9:14am:

freediver wrote on Dec 28th, 2009 at 6:07pm: So to continue, I cannot ask you to explain anything you post. We must merely delve deeper and deeper into athosism and disregard all that makes no sense along the way? Can you explain how science is based on Aristotle's syllogism? Aristotle's Syllogism is basically deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning forms an intrinsic part of science. In the scientific method, it's point 3, and that can be as simple or as complex as you like. In a nutshell: 1. Gather data 2. Hypothesize an explanation for the observations. 3. Deduce a consequence of that explanation (a prediction). Formulate an experiment to see if the predicted consequence is observed. 4. Wait for corroboration. If there is corroboration, go to step 3. If not, the hypothesis is falsified. Go to step 2.

Very well done rationalised comprehensive explanation Musso.

I tried to explain to him on more simplified level but even then didn’t work.
It’s difficult to deal with someone’s perfect mixture of ignorance and arrogance.
People who know something quickly realise how knowledge is infinite and naturally become modest.
People who know nothing still think they know everything and always remain arrogant.
Maybe it could be due wrong corporate Social Darwinistic education that teaches them that arrogance is strength and modesty is a weakness.

Japanese multiplication - slower but elegant.



https://mobile.twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1600866397784973312

Let's ask ChatGPT

Ask: Are maths and science the same thing?

Response:
No, math and science are not the same thing. Math is a branch of study that deals with numbers, quantities, and shapes, while science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. While math is used in many areas of science, it is not the same as science.

Ask: expand on explaination

Response:
Math is a field of study that deals with numbers, quantities, and shapes. It includes branches such as algebra, geometry, and calculus. Math is used to describe and understand patterns and relationships in the physical world, such as the motion of objects, the growth of populations, and the behavior of systems.

Science, on the other hand, is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is divided into several branches, such as physics, chemistry, biology, and earth science. Science aims to understand the natural world through observation and experimentation. It is used to explain phenomena such as the origins of the universe, the behavior of subatomic particles, and the functioning of living organisms.

While math is used in many areas of science, it is not the same as science. Science relies on the use of mathematical concepts and tools to make predictions, analyze data and make conclusions. However, science also involves the use of other methodologies such as observation, experimentation, and logical reasoning to understand and explain the natural world.

Chat GPT Link: https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/

Yep - the Blacks taught the Brownies who taught the Europeans all about Mathematics.
Black is the colour of Maths.
Just ask NASA how their Black employee's saved their arses on many occassions with Mathematics.

Black: The Land, Maths
Yellow: The City, Sports
Blue: Medicine, Food
Brown: Religion, Spirituality (Fashion)
White: Politics, Underwater
Green: Military, Animal Conservation
Red: The Sky (Aero), Art
Grey: Music, Science

...that's why a olive-skinned Military Emperor rules over the little Brown Religious people in the Middle-East (A Brown Spiritualist will rule over the little green men of South America in reverse).

Black is the colour of Money and it will one day grow on trees again. PNG should be charging the world for keeping the air clean and oxygenated.

Jasin wrote on Jan 14^th, 2023 at 1:12pm:

Yep - the Blacks taught the Brownies who taught the Europeans all about Mathematics. Black is the colour of Maths. Just ask NASA how their Black employee's saved their arses on many occassions with Mathematics. Black: The Land, Maths Yellow: The City, Sports Blue: Medicine, Food Brown: Religion, Spirituality (Fashion) White: Politics, Underwater Green: Military, Animal Conservation Red: The Sky (Aero), Art Grey: Music, Science ...that's why a olive-skinned Military Emperor rules over the little Brown Religious people in the Middle-East (A Brown Spiritualist will rule over the little green men of South America in reverse). Black is the colour of Money and it will one day grow on trees again. PNG should be charging the world for keeping the air clean and oxygenated.

Whatever you're on, stop taking it !

Awwwwwwww.
Is it beyond your ability to comprehend?

Super Nova wrote on Jan 13^th, 2023 at 11:00pm:

Let's ask ChatGPT Ask: Are maths and science the same thing? Response: No, math and science are not the same thing. Math is a branch of study that deals with numbers, quantities, and shapes, while science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. While math is used in many areas of science, it is not the same as science. Ask: expand on explaination Response: Math is a field of study that deals with numbers, quantities, and shapes. It includes branches such as algebra, geometry, and calculus. Math is used to describe and understand patterns and relationships in the physical world, such as the motion of objects, the growth of populations, and the behavior of systems. Science, on the other hand, is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is divided into several branches, such as physics, chemistry, biology, and earth science. Science aims to understand the natural world through observation and experimentation. It is used to explain phenomena such as the origins of the universe, the behavior of subatomic particles, and the functioning of living organisms. While math is used in many areas of science, it is not the same as science. Science relies on the use of mathematical concepts and tools to make predictions, analyze data and make conclusions. However, science also involves the use of other methodologies such as observation, experimentation, and logical reasoning to understand and explain the natural world.

Terrific answer

Where would science be without maths

Yes - there are 'partnerships'.

Like the Health (Medicine) and Fitness (Sport)

or the Political and Military (the Cop and Soldier)

Science and Math
Art and Religion

...and so on. So sure, Math and Science are different - they do work well together like neighbours talking over a fence.

Just like Regions:
North America & Middle-East
Europe & Asia
Sahul & South America
Africa & Oceania
;)