EvC Forum: Is Math Science?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Is Math Science?

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 4.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 4 of 33 (354175)
10-04-2006 1:28 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by kuresu
10-04-2006 12:47 PM

It is my opinion that math is not science, ...

I agree. Most mathematicians would probably agree with you.

and I'd like to try and prove it here

But there, I disagree. You cannot prove that mathematics is, or is not, science. It is a matter of convention, not of proof.

1)science is tentative. What is known as fact today will not be tomorrow. math is not, to the best of my knowledge, tentative. 2 and 2 will always equal four given the rules we use (1984 does not count).

This is not a proof. It is a plausibility argument, but it fails as a proof. "Science is tentative" is a characterization of science, but it is not part of the definition of science (if there is such a thing as a definition of science).

Math has a method--for finding out answers known as the order of operations. It is not a method by which to find new formulas.

You might try looking at some of the mathematics research journals. You might discover that they are, indeed, discovering new things (including new formulae).

3)where is the philosophy?

Try meta-mathematics.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1 by kuresu, posted 10-04-2006 12:47 PM		kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 6 by kuresu, posted 10-04-2006 2:06 PM	nwr has replied
	Message 10 by Dr Jack, posted 10-04-2006 3:32 PM	nwr has seen this message but not replied
	Message 22 by riVeRraT, posted 10-06-2006 7:00 AM	nwr has replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 4.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 7 of 33 (354202)
10-04-2006 2:46 PM

Reply to: Message 6 by kuresu
10-04-2006 2:06 PM

If tentativity is not a crucial part of a science, then what is the basis for falsification?

Falsifaction is not part of the definition of science. Rather, it comes from Popper's philosophy of science, and is somewhat controversial.

Can you falsify "2 + 2 = 4"?

That's true by definition. But then parts of science are true by definition.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
	Message 6 by kuresu, posted 10-04-2006 2:06 PM		kuresu has not replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 4.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 17 of 33 (354265)
10-04-2006 6:47 PM

Reply to: Message 13 by Straggler
10-04-2006 6:25 PM

I am more interested to know if people think we doscover or invent maths?

Kronecker famously said "God gave us the natural numbers. All else is the work of man." Personally, I think Kronecker gave God too much credit.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
	Message 13 by Straggler, posted 10-04-2006 6:25 PM		Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 31 by cavediver, posted 10-06-2006 6:47 PM		nwr has seen this message but not replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 4.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 18 of 33 (354267)
10-04-2006 6:52 PM

Reply to: Message 14 by Brad McFall
10-04-2006 6:31 PM

Re: I vote for invent.

At first blush, I would tend to have already said that I think I would "discover" science but "invent" math.

I'm not so sure you can easily separate discovery from invention. There is a lot of invention in science, and there is a lot of discovery in mathematics. Sometimes we invent in order to discover.

Maybe we invented the natural numbers. But mathematician discovered the prime number theorem. Sure, if they invented numbers, then the prime number theorem is a consequence of that invention. But it is not an obvious consequence, so required discovery.

In science we invent methods of getting data, in order to discover things about the world.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 14 by Brad McFall, posted 10-04-2006 6:31 PM		Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 21 by Brad McFall, posted 10-04-2006 7:06 PM		nwr has seen this message but not replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 4.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 23 of 33 (354733)
10-06-2006 8:16 AM

Reply to: Message 22 by riVeRraT
10-06-2006 7:00 AM

Could we prove that math is not science by stating the obvious fact that math is but a tool used in science, just like a bleeker?

There is a branch of philosophy, known as "epistemology", which supposedly studies the theoretical principles of knowledge. In my opinion, much of it is silly. I favor the view that mathematics is the real epistemology.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
	Message 22 by riVeRraT, posted 10-06-2006 7:00 AM		riVeRraT has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

6 online now:	AZPaul3, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat, Rahvin
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,852 Year: 4,109/9,624 Month: 980/974 Week: 307/286 Day: 28/40 Hour: 0/2