Math or Science

Please compose all posts in Emacs.

Moderators: phlip, Moderators General, Prelates

Math or Science

Math
94
60%
Science
63
40%
 
Total votes: 157

gbagcn2
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:36 pm UTC

Math or Science

Postby gbagcn2 » Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:41 pm UTC

I like to think so I like math better

tckthomas
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:17 am UTC

Re: Math or Science

Postby tckthomas » Tue Sep 28, 2010 3:39 pm UTC

MATH MATH MATH!

totally math.

User avatar
hintss
Posts: 1294
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:19 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Math or Science

Postby hintss » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:05 am UTC

science, if it applies math. I always liked doing stuff, but I also like to think. best to combine them

B.Good
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Maryland

Re: Math or Science

Postby B.Good » Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:47 am UTC

I have to go with math. I really like doing math and if it didn't exist, we wouldn't have physics (which is my favorite science).

tckthomas
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:17 am UTC

Re: Math or Science

Postby tckthomas » Fri Oct 01, 2010 4:24 pm UTC

B.Good wrote:I have to go with math. I really like doing math and if it didn't exist, we wouldn't have physics (which is my favorite science).


Actually, I'd like to think that at one point in human history, math didn't exist. And I believe it was physics which created math when human decided to look at the smaller details in their world.

Edit: The meaning in this post is LIFE!

B.Good
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Maryland

Re: Math or Science

Postby B.Good » Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:32 am UTC

tckthomas wrote:
B.Good wrote:I have to go with math. I really like doing math and if it didn't exist, we wouldn't have physics (which is my favorite science).


Actually, I'd like to think that at one point in human history, math didn't exist. And I believe it was physics which created math when human decided to look at the smaller details in their world.

Edit: The meaning in this post is LIFE!

I'll agree with you on this. I tried to restructure my post to somehow say that I wouldn't like conceptual physics as much as physics with math, so it all basically ties back to me liking mathematics more.

User avatar
JayDee
Posts: 3620
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: Most livable city in the world.
Contact:

Re: Math or Science

Postby JayDee » Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:36 am UTC

Pff. It's not an either or question.
V. I. Arnold wrote:Mathematics is a part of physics. Physics is an experimental science, a part of natural science. Mathematics is the part of physics where experiments are cheap.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I believe that everything can and must be joked about.
Hawknc wrote:I like to think that he hasn't left, he's just finally completed his foe list.

tckthomas
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:17 am UTC

Re: Math or Science

Postby tckthomas » Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:28 pm UTC

I think: parts of math are physics, and part/all of physics are math.

I don't know how correct that is, but it looks pretty correct to me.

User avatar
sonickrahnic
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:16 am UTC
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta, CANADA
Contact:

Re: Math or Science

Postby sonickrahnic » Wed Oct 06, 2010 2:48 am UTC

Math is the language of science. Without math there could be no science. Math is the fundamental building block of the universe. Of course this is all my opinion but I hope others feel the same way.
WSNBM/ONBP

User avatar
scarecrovv
It's pronounced 'double u'
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: Math or Science

Postby scarecrovv » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:47 pm UTC

To sit down and think about something is far less interesting than to get up and do it. Science is therefore better.

ImagingGeek
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:41 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Math or Science

Postby ImagingGeek » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:55 pm UTC

Science, all the way. Math is a tool, nothing more...

Bryan
I have a new blog, on making beer.

Not that anyone reads it...

ImagingGeek
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:41 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Math or Science

Postby ImagingGeek » Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:35 pm UTC

sonickrahnic wrote:Math is the language of science. Without math there could be no science


Err, no.

Evolutionary theory was derived with no mathematics what-so-ever. It existed this way until the new synthesis came alone (1930's), wherein mathematic principals such as Hardy–Weinberg equilibriums were added. Many areas of biology continue to operate with minimal mathematics.

Most of early chemistry was purely observational; little to no math to be found.

The scientific disproof of geocentricism (a religious concepts with a lot of math "supporting it", btw) was purely observational.

The list goes on...

Bryan
I have a new blog, on making beer.

Not that anyone reads it...

B.Good
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Maryland

Re: Math or Science

Postby B.Good » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:20 am UTC

ImagingGeek wrote:Science, all the way. Math is a tool, nothing more...

Bryan

I beg to differ, mathematics is its own field of study. For example, the only way number theory could be classified (as far as I know) would be as an area of study in mathematics. Sure, there are plenty of places where math can be applied, but to say that's all that math is greatly undermines it.

jfeord14
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:55 pm UTC

Re: Math or Science

Postby jfeord14 » Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:06 am UTC

if we didn't have science then we wouldn't have anything to do with math. Plus science is funner *note: not more fun, but funner*

User avatar
Dason
Posts: 1311
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:06 am UTC
Location: ~/

Re: Math or Science

Postby Dason » Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:08 pm UTC

jfeord14 wrote:if we didn't have science then we wouldn't have anything to do with math.

Hahaha. Wrong.
double epsilon = -.0000001;

User avatar
scarecrovv
It's pronounced 'double u'
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: Math or Science

Postby scarecrovv » Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:17 pm UTC

Dason wrote:
jfeord14 wrote:if we didn't have science then we wouldn't have anything to do with math.

Hahaha. Wrong.

You are correct that science is not the only use for math. However, most uses for math beyond simple arithmetic and geometry have been enabled by scientific progress. So while higher math is quite useful in engineering and modern finance and all sorts of other places, without science those fields would not exist in the first place. Everything is connected, but the concept of testing ideas with experiments is much more fundamental than the idea of rigorous reasoning about spaces and quantities.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Math or Science

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:18 am UTC

jfeord14 wrote:if we didn't have science then we wouldn't have anything interesting to do with math.


Fixed.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

tckthomas
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:17 am UTC

Re: Math or Science

Postby tckthomas » Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:43 pm UTC

yes, a rather big fix indeed.

User avatar
sonickrahnic
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:16 am UTC
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta, CANADA
Contact:

Re: Math or Science

Postby sonickrahnic » Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:58 pm UTC

sonickrahnic wrote:Math is the language of science. Without math there could be no science. Math is the fundamental building block of the universe. Of course this is all my opinion but I hope others feel the same way.



To reinforce my point, here is a word from Mr. Munroe:
http://xkcd.com/435


Sorry. I had to. It was bugging me all day at work today.
WSNBM/ONBP

User avatar
Mr. Burke
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:56 pm UTC

Re: Math or Science

Postby Mr. Burke » Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:30 am UTC

But math is a science!

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: Math or Science

Postby PeterCai » Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:54 am UTC

Mr. Burke wrote:But math is a the supreme overlord of science!

User avatar
sonickrahnic
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:16 am UTC
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta, CANADA
Contact:

Re: Math or Science

Postby sonickrahnic » Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:49 am UTC

Well said Sir, well said.
WSNBM/ONBP

User avatar
aaronasterling
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:31 am UTC
Location: A Volcanic Island

Re: Math or Science

Postby aaronasterling » Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:08 am UTC

Mr. Burke wrote:But math is a science!


Math is most definitely not a science. I fail to see how the two are even related other than that some sciences happen to coincidentally employ some results of mathematics.

The reason that it makes no sense to think of math as a science is that science is based on demonstrating through experiment that assertions are false and mathematics works by mathematically provingthat assertions are true or false. Once a correct proof has been submitted, you are insane (i.e. a circle squarer) to question its validity. On the other hand, to quote Feynmann, "science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Put another way, science is incapable of producing truth1. You can quote me on that. It's only capable of producing increasingly accurate approximations to truth. Mathematics on the other hand produces true statements from the very beginning (true assuming the truth of the chosen axioms). So, as you can see, they are two completely different fields.

Also, somebody suggested that math didn't exist before physics. I disagree but am too lazy to find it and quote it. Mathematics existed before humans or even the universe itself. Mathematics is discovered and not invented and needs nothing but itself for (an informal sort of) consistency. I'm not advocating that we worship it or anything, as is customarily done with purported entities that possess this last feature, but we should give awesomeness of such truly awe inspiring-ly awesome proportions its due credit. Conflating it with a mundane (though also awesome) invention of humans is not doing mathematics justice.


1By 'truth' I mean in the general case. That is I don't mean "The particular object will accelerate at x meters per second in this one particular case" but "a = GrmM/|r|3 for any two objects always and forever in all cases with absolutely no exceptions ever not even one tiny one that you can just barely notice if you put your beer goggles on".
Smarter than a chimpanzee

tckthomas
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:17 am UTC

Re: Math or Science

Postby tckthomas » Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:13 am UTC

The above person wants to start a religious war with me, and I declare WAR!_~+@)#($*%&^

A Mathematician's Lament says that Math is an ART, and because it is my *BIBLE* and the rewritten version of the *BIBLE* (by me) says that the *BIBLE* speaks only of ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

So now, the religious part done, if humans did not have rocks and spears to throw at monkeys and fish, then they would not have been able to observe arcs that throwing them formed, or stones slowing down when hitting the water. This observation is physics. Are you telling me that humans arranged stones counting 1+2=3 before they threw them? Almost surely humans threw stones and OBSERVING the arc before they counted them, and almost surely humans broke branches off trees and OBSERVING the crunch before they counted them, and almost surely (and really really surely) humans OBSERVED the light bouncing off water before they came up with the law of optics.

Unless you misunderstood me, you wouldn't have been trying to start a war because I meant humans OBSERVED physics before humans OBSERVED math.

User avatar
aaronasterling
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:31 am UTC
Location: A Volcanic Island

Re: Math or Science

Postby aaronasterling » Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:53 am UTC

tckthomas wrote:So now, the religious part done, if humans did not have rocks and spears to throw at other monkeys and fish,


Totally OT but fix'd anyways.

As you've restated your claim, I still disagree with it. You seem to be setting a higher bar for involvement in math than in physics. Specifically, you are claiming that throwing rocks and observing arcs is an involvement in physics but that knowing how many rocks you have left to throw is not mathematics. Likewise, if hearing a "crunch" (with only a superstitious explanation proffered) constitutes an achievement in physics, then most certainly, the implicit knowledge of how many branches one has snapped constitutes an achievement of similar magnitude in mathematics.

There are other animals (some species of birds and monitor lizards being the most evolutionarily distant AFAIK) that can count so it strikes me as pretty silly to claim that our ancestors couldn't manage it.
Smarter than a chimpanzee

tckthomas
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:17 am UTC

Re: Math or Science

Postby tckthomas » Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:03 pm UTC

I meant what I meant, no need for you to fix it. I guess you forgot stone wars. and yes, I am setting a higher bar for involvement in math than in physics. and because of that reason, I love math a bit more than science

ImagingGeek
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:41 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Math or Science

Postby ImagingGeek » Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:56 pm UTC

Evolutionary speaking, science (as in conclusions based on observation) likely came first. We know most mammals are capable of observing and learning from their environments - even animals as simple as mice show rudimentary problem-solving behaviours. While far from formalised science, it is a reflection of the scientific process - observe, conclude. In contrast, counting (the simplest math I can think of) is only intrinsic to us humans, although apes such as chimpanzees can be taught very basic counting abilities.

Not that age has anything to do with it - science is way cooler than math could ever hope to be.

Bryan
I have a new blog, on making beer.

Not that anyone reads it...

User avatar
aaronasterling
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:31 am UTC
Location: A Volcanic Island

Re: Math or Science

Postby aaronasterling » Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:30 pm UTC

ImagingGeek wrote:Evolutionary speaking, science (as in conclusions based on observation) likely came first. We know most mammals are capable of observing and learning from their environments - even animals as simple as mice show rudimentary problem-solving behaviours. While far from formalised science, it is a reflection of the scientific process - observe, conclude. In contrast, counting (the simplest math I can think of) is only intrinsic to us humans, although apes such as chimpanzees can be taught very basic counting abilities.


You should wiki it. At the very least african greys and monitor lizards can count. Also, (being pedantic again) humans are, along with being monkeys, more specifically, apes. I just bring this up because you seem to be letting your anthrocentrism get in the way of your clear thinking.

What makes you think it's intrinsic only to one species? Even in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that seems to be a fairly large negative statement to believe and most definitely falls under Einstein's definition of common sense.

It's also worth pointing out that I too think age is irrelevant to how much more awesome math is than science (other than evo which hardly counts as science: you know its true just by thinking about it). When I disagreed with the statement that physics existed before math, I meant on their own terms and not merely as human endeavors. That is, physics needs a universe to make any sense and has no meaning as an absolute: it's a process which needs rational organisms to carry it out. Mathematics on the other hand is an absolute. Any decidable proposition in mathematics has already "been decided" and is absolutely true or false. Mathematics doesn't have state the way physics does. For example, one could imagine a planet which orbits its star at close to the speed of light. Their equivalent of Newton would have formulated a completely different law of gravity and set physics evolving on a completely different path1. This alien race would still discover the exact same mathematics
though.

1 Though, if there is a final theory, their version of physics would still converge to it.
Smarter than a chimpanzee

poohat
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:21 am UTC

Re: Math or Science

Postby poohat » Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:11 am UTC

aaronasterling wrote:The reason that it makes no sense to think of math as a science is that science is based on demonstrating through experiment that assertions are false and mathematics works by mathematically provingthat assertions are true or false. Once a correct proof has been submitted, you are insane (i.e. a circle squarer) to question its validity. On the other hand, to quote Feynmann, "science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Put another way, science is incapable of producing truth1. You can quote me on that. It's only capable of producing increasingly accurate approximations to truth. Mathematics on the other hand produces true statements from the very beginning (true assuming the truth of the chosen axioms). So, as you can see, they are two completely different fields.
.

For non-trivial proofs you can argue that you cant ever be 100% sure they're correct, because theyre too complicated to check to that degree of certainty. Several proofs that have been published in maths journals (and peer reviewed) have been later retracted due to subtle errors that noone noticed. Both Fermat's Last Theorem and the Poincare Conjecture are now considered proven, but realistically both of the proofs were hundreds of pages long and insanely complex to the point where they could only be read by a very small number of professional mathematicans. So its certainly possible that there's a mistake in the proofs that noone has noticed yet, and repeatedly checking the papers will just make the risk of a mistake less probable, rather than eliminating it.

Imo it's much more likely that Fermat's Last Theoren will actually be proven false (ie the accepted proof turns out to be wrong) than it is that germ theory of disease will turn out to be wrong. So the 'absolute certainty' of mathematics is probably overstated once you move beyond trivial things like 2+2=4.

And yeah, I think you can discover truth through science. I know philosophy of science students like to argue the opposite but theyve generally had their brains warped by theoretical physics where theories are so abstract from data that its almost impossible to directly verify them. Realistically its absolutely certain that germs exist (we can even see them under microscopes now), that DNA is involved in evolution, that the brain causes consciousness, etc.

ImagingGeek
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:41 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Math or Science

Postby ImagingGeek » Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:01 pm UTC

aaronasterling wrote:
ImagingGeek wrote:Evolutionary speaking, science (as in conclusions based on observation) likely came first. We know most mammals are capable of observing and learning from their environments - even animals as simple as mice show rudimentary problem-solving behaviours. While far from formalised science, it is a reflection of the scientific process - observe, conclude. In contrast, counting (the simplest math I can think of) is only intrinsic to us humans, although apes such as chimpanzees can be taught very basic counting abilities.


You should wiki it. At the very least african greys and monitor lizards can count. Also, (being pedantic again) humans are, along with being monkeys, more specifically, apes. I just bring this up because you seem to be letting your anthrocentrism get in the way of your clear thinking.

I stand corrected, although in the case of african greys, their ability to count is somewhat controversial. And appears to be a recent trait (and perhaps also one that they need to learn from humans - i.e. is not intrinsic/innate, which it appears to e for us humans).

aaronasterling wrote:What makes you think it's intrinsic only to one species? Even in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that seems to be a fairly large negative statement to believe and most definitely falls under Einstein's definition of common sense.

The idea (which was overstated, but appears to be generally true) comes from the cognitive sciences - various aspects of mental function have been tested in many genera of animals - everything from self-awareness, to learning, to memory, to cognition, to counting. And counting seems to be an extremely rare trait (although, like many of these traits, measuring "counting" in non-speaking animals is somewhat difficult).

aaronasterling wrote:It's also worth pointing out that I too think age is irrelevant to how much more awesome math is than science (other than evo which hardly counts as science: you know its true just by thinking about it).

Gravity requires even less thought, and is far more obvious than evolution. Guess we better tell all them physicists that they're not studying science...

aaronasterling wrote:When I disagreed with the statement that physics existed before math, I meant on their own terms and not merely as human endeavors. That is, physics needs a universe to make any sense and has no meaning as an absolute: it's a process which needs rational organisms to carry it out. Mathematics on the other hand is an absolute. Any decidable proposition in mathematics has already "been decided" and is absolutely true or false. Mathematics doesn't have state the way physics does. For example, one could imagine a planet which orbits its star at close to the speed of light. Their equivalent of Newton would have formulated a completely different law of gravity and set physics evolving on a completely different path1. This alien race would still discover the exact same mathematics though.

I'm not so sure about this. Some aspects of math - geometry, for example, are highly dependent on basic physical properties of the universe. For example, the angles within a triangle only add upto 180 degrees in a flat universe - it can be more, or less, in curved universes (this principal was recently used to measure the curvature of our own universe, btw). AFAIK, that same requirement holds true for pathagoras's therom as well. So, at least in that one case, a fairly basic mathmatics is predicated on physical constraints.

Bryan
I have a new blog, on making beer.

Not that anyone reads it...

User avatar
aaronasterling
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:31 am UTC
Location: A Volcanic Island

Re: Math or Science

Postby aaronasterling » Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:01 pm UTC

ImagingGeek wrote:I stand corrected, although in the case of african greys, their ability to count is somewhat controversial. And appears to be a recent trait (and perhaps also one that they need to learn from humans - i.e. is not intrinsic/innate, which it appears to e for us humans).


Regardless, the ability to learn is what's important. Are we sure that counting is innate to our species or is it something that got figured out a few times and has since been learned through cultural transmission?
ImagingGeek wrote:
aaronasterling wrote:What makes you think it's intrinsic only to one species? Even in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that seems to be a fairly large negative statement to believe and most definitely falls under Einstein's definition of common sense.

The idea (which was overstated, but appears to be generally true) comes from the cognitive sciences - various aspects of mental function have been tested in many genera of animals - everything from self-awareness, to learning, to memory, to cognition, to counting. And counting seems to be an extremely rare trait (although, like many of these traits, measuring "counting" in non-speaking animals is somewhat difficult).

I'm going to have to back down off of this point, it being rather tangential.

ImagingGeek wrote:
aaronasterling wrote:It's also worth pointing out that I too think age is irrelevant to how much more awesome math is than science (other than evo which hardly counts as science: you know its true just by thinking about it).

Gravity requires even less thought, and is far more obvious than evolution. Guess we better tell all them physicists that they're not studying science...


Meh. There is just so much that you can infer about evolution from logic alone. For example, you can conclusively rule out any sort of group selection and then bring it back in certain situations but reduced to gene selection. One could postulate different theories of gravity and it would fall to the empiricists to check them out. With evolution, it's much more of a formality. The theory, as developed based on replicators, has to be true in any system which satisfies the assumptions. As Darwin's brother in law said when first presented with the theory before its publication, "If the facts don't support this theory then so much the worse for the facts." You can't say that about a theory of gravity.

ImagingGeek wrote:I'm not so sure about this. Some aspects of math - geometry, for example, are highly dependent on basic physical properties of the universe. For example, the angles within a triangle only add upto 180 degrees in a flat universe - it can be more, or less, in curved universes (this principal was recently used to measure the curvature of our own universe, btw). AFAIK, that same requirement holds true for pathagoras's therom as well. So, at least in that one case, a fairly basic mathmatics is predicated on physical constraints.


This is quite frankly nonsense. One would still be able to postulate, discuss and prove theorems about ℝ3 under the euclidean metric if one lived in and had only ever experienced a six dimensional calabi-yau space. Mathematics is in no way dependent on reality.

poohat wrote:For non-trivial proofs you can argue that you cant ever be 100% sure they're correct, because theyre too complicated to check to that degree of certainty. Several proofs that have been published in maths journals (and peer reviewed) have been later retracted due to subtle errors that noone noticed. Both Fermat's Last Theorem and the Poincare Conjecture are now considered proven, but realistically both of the proofs were hundreds of pages long and insanely complex to the point where they could only be read by a very small number of professional mathematicans. So its certainly possible that there's a mistake in the proofs that noone has noticed yet, and repeatedly checking the papers will just make the risk of a mistake less probable, rather than eliminating it.

Imo it's much more likely that Fermat's Last Theoren will actually be proven false (ie the accepted proof turns out to be wrong) than it is that germ theory of disease will turn out to be wrong. So the 'absolute certainty' of mathematics is probably overstated once you move beyond trivial things like 2+2=4.


These are good points. On the other hand though, I find it far more likely that the laws of physics will change (there is preliminary evidence that the fine structure constant varies throughout the universe :wink: ) so that the basis of the germ theory of disease falls apart and there are no germs but there are still living organisms that get disease from (now existing) evil spirits than that the actual (that is not just our opinion) status of Fermat's Last Theorem will change. Sorry for the run-on.

More seriously, in two hundred years, either FLT will have been shown to be false all along or second year grad students that are focusing on algebra will be able to prove it as an exercise using the new techniques and abstractions that will surely be developed in the intervening years. One can go quite a bit past 2+2=4 and still be certain.

poohat wrote:And yeah, I think you can discover truth through science. I know philosophy of science students like to argue the opposite but theyve generally had their brains warped by theoretical physics where theories are so abstract from data that its almost impossible to directly verify them. Realistically its absolutely certain that germs exist (we can even see them under microscopes now), that DNA is involved in evolution, that the brain causes consciousness, etc.


What does it even mean for it to exist though? How do you know that your microscope is telling the truth? What about the Duhem–Quine problem? I believe a microscope is the classical example. None of this plagues math. You don't need any faith to assert truth in mathematics (just that we have it). You do in science. The dependency of science on the actual physical universe just dirties it a little bit. It's all a matter of opinion though I suppose.
Smarter than a chimpanzee

ImagingGeek
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:41 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Math or Science

Postby ImagingGeek » Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

aaronasterling wrote:
ImagingGeek wrote:I stand corrected, although in the case of african greys, their ability to count is somewhat controversial. And appears to be a recent trait (and perhaps also one that they need to learn from humans - i.e. is not intrinsic/innate, which it appears to e for us humans).

Regardless, the ability to learn is what's important. Are we sure that counting is innate to our species or is it something that got figured out a few times and has since been learned through cultural transmission?

Believe it or not, we know the answer to that question - it is innate. Feral children (children who live their early lives in the absence of human interactions) have taught us a lot about how the human brain works, and what is innate verses learned. Language, for example, is not innate, but rather is something for which our brains have the capacity to learn if it is introduced at a early age. Children deprived of language in their early years of life cannot learn language to any significant extent - single-word communications are possible, but sentences, possessives, etc, are out of reach. Counting, on the other hand, appears to be intrinsic - these same kids can count, at least to some extent (i.e. the difference between 19 & 20 they can handle. The difference between 1,999,999,999 and 2,000,000,000 may be beyond their comprehension).

I don't have a weblink, but the book Feral Children and Clever Animals: Reflections on Human Nature by Douglas K. Candland goes over most of the data we have in this regard. It is dry (and not overly well written), but the facts are quite interesting.

aaronasterling wrote:
ImagingGeek wrote:I'm not so sure about this. Some aspects of math - geometry, for example, are highly dependent on basic physical properties of the universe. For example, the angles within a triangle only add upto 180 degrees in a flat universe - it can be more, or less, in curved universes (this principal was recently used to measure the curvature of our own universe, btw). AFAIK, that same requirement holds true for pathagoras's therom as well. So, at least in that one case, a fairly basic mathmatics is predicated on physical constraints.

This is quite frankly nonsense. One would still be able to postulate, discuss and prove theorems about ℝ3 under the euclidean metric if one lived in and had only ever experienced a six dimensional calabi-yau space. Mathematics is in no way dependent on reality.

Lawrence Krauss and several other astronomers and astrophysicists would like to disagree with you there. They used the very principal I described above (the sum of angles in a triangle) to determine the curvature of our universe. And you don't need extra dimensions for that...3 is sufficient, although you do need the fourth to make the measurements they made to be possible.

Bryan
I have a new blog, on making beer.

Not that anyone reads it...

User avatar
aaronasterling
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:31 am UTC
Location: A Volcanic Island

Re: Math or Science

Postby aaronasterling » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:49 pm UTC

ImagingGeek wrote:
aaronasterling wrote:This is quite frankly nonsense. One would still be able to postulate, discuss and prove theorems about ℝ3 under the euclidean metric if one lived in and had only ever experienced a six dimensional calabi-yau space. Mathematics is in no way dependent on reality.

Lawrence Krauss and several other astronomers and astrophysicists would like to disagree with you there. They used the very principal I described above (the sum of angles in a triangle) to determine the curvature of our universe. And you don't need extra dimensions for that...3 is sufficient, although you do need the fourth to make the measurements they made to be possible.

Bryan


Right I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm saying that they used math + measurement to tell us about the physical world. They did not use the physical world to tell us about math. If so, what new theorem did they prove? How did they get a rigorous proof from a measurement? You're not allowed to do that sort of stuff.
Smarter than a chimpanzee

User avatar
MHD
Posts: 630
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:21 pm UTC
Location: Denmark

Re: Math or Science

Postby MHD » Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:49 pm UTC

Since CS and programming is 99%+ mathematics, I vote that.
EvanED wrote:be aware that when most people say "regular expression" they really mean "something that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike a regular expression"

User avatar
the tree
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:23 pm UTC
Location: Behind you

Re: Math or Science

Postby the tree » Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:47 pm UTC

MHD wrote:Since CS and programming is 99%+ mathematics, I vote that.
Not only that. I think it's definitely worth noting that pure math is a thing which is why I outright reject the assertion that math is part of physics. I think this is beyond comparing apples and oranges, I think that trying to find a winner between these two is like trying to find a winner between orchards and internal combustion engines.

User avatar
aaronasterling
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:31 am UTC
Location: A Volcanic Island

Re: Math or Science

Postby aaronasterling » Mon Nov 29, 2010 1:54 am UTC

the tree wrote:
MHD wrote:Since CS and programming is 99%+ mathematics, I vote that.
Not only that. I think it's definitely worth noting that pure math is a thing which is why I outright reject the assertion that math is part of physics. I think this is beyond comparing apples and oranges, I think that trying to find a winner between these two is like trying to find a winner between orchards and internal combustion engines.


+1 for orchards. They give food and I've always wanted to live in a tree house.

There, see how easy that was :wink:
Smarter than a chimpanzee

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Math or Science

Postby BlackSails » Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:56 am UTC

How is it that nobody has brought up the Feynman quote yet?

User avatar
Dason
Posts: 1311
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:06 am UTC
Location: ~/

Re: Math or Science

Postby Dason » Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:17 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:How is it that nobody has brought up the Feynman quote yet?

How is it that you didn't actually post the Feynman quote?
double epsilon = -.0000001;

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: Math or Science

Postby Endless Mike » Wed Dec 01, 2010 8:00 pm UTC

aaronasterling wrote:
the tree wrote:
MHD wrote:Since CS and programming is 99%+ mathematics, I vote that.
Not only that. I think it's definitely worth noting that pure math is a thing which is why I outright reject the assertion that math is part of physics. I think this is beyond comparing apples and oranges, I think that trying to find a winner between these two is like trying to find a winner between orchards and internal combustion engines.


+1 for orchards. They give food and I've always wanted to live in a tree house.

There, see how easy that was :wink:

IC engines let me go fast and keep warm. But mostly go fast.

Ruin
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:17 pm UTC

Re: Math or Science

Postby Ruin » Fri Dec 03, 2010 4:54 am UTC

In my opinion, science is better than math by a narrow margin. To me, it comes down to practicality - mathematics and science are both interesting, but while science can be used for construction, manufacturing, agriculture, etc, much of math stays in the realms of theory. Some mathematical concepts to have applications, but generally in the fields of software, electronics; newer mathematical theorems and study past calculus just seems to have fewer "real" uses. That being said, while I prefer science as a field, I like mathematics because it's so precise, but biomedical engineering, molecular biology, and even more basic sciences are more applicable to life in general than, say, proving Collatz's Conjecture or working with the Axiom of Choice.


Return to “Religious Wars”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests