Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Science! Ask you question here. Biscuits NOT included and answers not guaranteed.

1…3839414344…48

Comments

  • #1202
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Playing the victim is so much easier than backing up your claims, isn't it? It's definitely easier to hide behind that than acknowledge the mountains of evidence and data we've shown you.

    You going to refute that paper, or would you like to hide from it for another 4 years?
    I'm not a victim ... I'm refuting the central points of your arguments ... and all ye can respond with is name calling (cretards) ... and ad hominems about Dembski's educational qualifications and such like.

    You guys need to 'up your game' ... and at least try to get off the bottom rung of the the heirarchy of disagreement.


  • #1203
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    J C wrote: »
    I'm not a victim ... I'm refuting the central points of your arguments ... and all ye can respond with is name calling (cretards) ... and ad hominems about Dembski's educational qualifications and such like.

    You guys need to 'up your game' ... and at least try to get off the bottom rung of the the heirarchy of disagreement.

    J C, it was a tongue-in-cheek joke. You can call us evolutards if you like. Perhaps the fact that you take offense to it is a sign that you have lost this argument.

    Here's a list of papers which refute Dembski.

    When you are done refuting the paper Sarky and I wish you to refute, you can get to work on these as well. Thanks!
    (a) Edis, Taner. 2002. "Darwin in Mind: Intelligent Design Meets Artificial Intelligence." www.csicop.org/si/2001-03/intelligent-design.html, accessed on June 23.
    (b) Eells, Ellery. 1999. "Review of The Design Inference by William A. Dembski." Philosophical Books 40, No 4.
    (c) Elsberry, Wesley R. 1999. "Review of WA Dembski, The Design Inference," Talk Reason http://www.talkreason.org/articles/inference.cfm, accessed on August 14, 2003.

    (d) Elsberry, Wesley R. and Jeffrey Shallit, 2003. "Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski's Complex Specified Information." Talk Reason. http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf, accessed on April 29, 2004.

    (e) Fitelson, Branden, Christopher Stephens, and Elliott Sober. 1999."How Not to Detect Design—Critical Notice: William A. Dembski, The Design Inference." Philosophy of Science 66: 472–88.

    (f) Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2001. "Information and the Argument From Design." In R. T. Pennock, ed., Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological and Scientific Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 575-596.

    (g) Korthof, Gert. 2000. "On the Origin of Information by Means of Intelligent Design", in Was Darwin Wrong? http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho44.htm, accessed on August 1, 2003.

    (h) Pennock, Robert T. 1999. Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    (i) Orr, H Allen, 2002, "Review of No Free Lunch, by William Dembski." Boston Review, 27, no. 3.

    (j) Pigliucci, Massimo. 2001."Design Yes, Intelligent No: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory and Neo-Creationism." Skeptical Inquirer 25, no. 5: 34–39.
    (k) Ratzsch, Del. 2001.Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in the Natural World. New York: State University of New York Press: 153-168.

    (l) Rosenhouse, Jason. 2002. "Probability, Optimization Theory, and Evolution." Evolution, v. 56, No 8, 1721.

    (m) Shallit, Jeffrey. 2003. "Review of Dembski's No Free Lunch." http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/nflr3.txt, accessed on August 7, 2003.

    (n) Shallit, Jeffrey and Wesley R. Elsberry. 2004. "Playing Games With Probability: Dembski's 'Complex Specified Information." Chap. 9 of M. Young and T. Edis, eds.Why Intelligent Design Fails: Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    (o) Shanks, Niall. 2004. God, the Devil, and Darwin. New York: Oxford University Press.

    (p) Stenger, Victor J. 2001. "Intelligent Design—The New Stealth Creationism," Talk Reason, http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Stealth.pdf, accessed on June 12, 2003.

    (q) Tellgren, Erik. 2002. "On Dembski's Law of Conservation of Information." Talk Reason. http://www.talkreason.org/articles/dembski_LCI.pdf, accessed on April 28, 2004.

    (r) Van Till, Howard J. 2003. "E coli at the No Free Lunch Room: Bacterial Flagella and Dembski's case for Intelligent Design." www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/perspectives/vantillecoli.pdf, accessed on April 28, 2004.

    (s) Wein, Richard. 2000. "Wrongly Inferred Design." Talk Reason, http://www.talkreason.org/articles/wrongly.cfm, accessed on April 28, 2004.

    (t) Wilkins, John S. and Wesley R. Elsberry. 2001. "The Advantages of Theft over Toil: The Design Inference and Arguing From Ignorance." Biology and Philosophy, 16: 711-724.

    (u)Young, Matt. (u1) 2001. "Intelligent Design Is Neither," paper presented at the conference Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? Atlanta, Georgia, November 9-11, www.mines.edu/~mmyoung/DesnConf.pdf, accessed on April 28, 2004.

    (u2) 2002. "How to Evolve Specified Complexity by Natural Means," www.pcts.org/journal/young2002a.html, accessed on April 28, 2004.

    (u3) 2004. "Dembski's Explanatory Filter Delivers a False Positive," Panda's Thumb, http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000166.html, posted April 22, 2004.


  • #1204
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    [-0-] wrote: »
    J C, it was a tongue-in-cheek joke. You can call us evolutards if you like.
    I wouldn't do such a thing ... because it isn't true ... and it would add nothing to the discussion.
    [-0-] wrote: »
    Perhaps the fact that you take offense to it is a sign that you have lost this argument.
    I haven't taken offense because I know it not to be true.
    [-0-] wrote: »
    Here's a list of papers which refute Dembski.

    When you are done refuting the paper Sarky and I wish you to refute, you can get to work on these as well. Thanks!
    This is a personal discussion forum ... if you have something to add to the discussion (including a relevant quote from some of these papers) please post it and I will respond.
    I am certainly not going to get bogged down reviewing a list of papers a mile long.

    Take a tip from oldrwiser ... he tends to operate at or above the Refutation level of the Heirarchy of disagreement.
    Is this because he is older and wiser?
    I don't know.

    ... and the only comment I will make on your extensive list of papers attempting to refute Dembski is that he must be saying something very interesting to cause such a welter of attempted refutations.


  • #1205
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    [-0-] wrote: »
    When you are done refuting the paper Sarky and I wish you to refute, you can get to work on these as well. Thanks!

    Jeez, what do you want him to earn another PhD? :eek:


  • #1206
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    J C wrote: »
    This is a personal discussion forum ... if you have something to add to the discussion (including a relevant quote from some of these papers) please post it and I will respond.
    I am certainly not going to get bogged down reviewing a list of papers a mile long.

    What exactly is a personal discussion forum? This is the Atheism & Agnosticism forum on boards.ie. The personal issues forum is here.

    Every one of these papers are worthwhile to this discussion, because you keep using a logical fallacy introduced by a fraudster, and each one of these papers outline multiple aspects of said fraudster's fraud.

    When are you going to refute the paper you were asked to refute four years ago?
    CFSI is wrong. Dembski knows it's wrong as well.


  • Advertisement
  • #1207
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    OMG! Spoiler!
    Jernal wrote: »
    Jeez, what do you want him to earn another PhD? :eek:

    One would be nice. Given the standard of J C's attempts at science, I don't believe he has so much as a diploma in the field. Hell, with the amount of incredibly basic stuff he gets wrong, it's plausible he never even took science in secondary school.


  • #1208
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    Jernal wrote: »
    Jeez, what do you want him to earn another PhD? :eek:

    I haven't lost faith ( :pac: ) with JC, and I would love for him to take my proposition seriously and read the papers I have linked him to.

    I would also love for him to take part in the free course I have recommended.

    I'm almost certain to have my heart broken, but it's worth a shot.


  • #1209
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    [-0-] wrote: »
    I haven't lost faith ( :pac: ) with JC, and I would love for him to take my proposition seriously and read the papers I have linked him to.

    I would also love for him to take part in the free course I have recommended.

    I'm almost certain to have my heart broken, but it's worth a shot.

    I think it's only fair that if JC does one of those propositions you must do something for JC in return. Maybe a recommended course by creations scientists?


  • #1210
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    J C wrote: »
    ... and the only comment I will make on your extensive list of papers attempting to refute Dembski is that he must be saying something very interesting to cause such a welter of attempted refutations.

    Nice edit.

    There are a long list of papers refuting what Dembski says simply because everything he says goes against science. I have outlined above, how intelligent design is NOT scientific research. Are you going to counter that at all?

    Are you going to counter anything I've said, other than trying to play the victim?

    You're almost as good at side-stepping as Dembski is. I can see why you like him so much.


  • #1211
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    Jernal wrote: »
    I think it's only fair that if JC does one of those propositions you must do something for JC in return. Maybe a recommended course by creations scientists?

    Hell, I'll do more than that. I would gladly read whatever JC wants me to read, and refute it as well. I'm back in Ireland from the 13th to the 29th. I would even meet up with him and debate with him in person if he liked.

    I don't think he'll take me up on that one though.


  • Advertisement
  • #1212
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    OMG! Spoiler!
    Jernal wrote: »
    I think it's only fair that if JC does one of those propositions you must do something for JC in return. Maybe a recommended course by creations scientists?

    You're not seriously suggesting there's anything to be learned from creationism besides circular logic and wilful ignorance, are you?


  • #1213
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    [-0-] wrote: »
    What exactly is a personal discussion forum? This is the Atheism & Agnosticism forum on boards.ie. The personal issues forum is here.
    What I mean is that people post their own personal opinions on the point under discussion rather than copying reams of text of somebody elses opinions without personal input from themselves ... or suggesting that other posters must review linked books or articles.

    [QUOTE='[-0-];87662434]Every one of these papers are worthwhile to this discussion, because you keep using a logical fallacy introduced by a fraudster, and each one of these papers outline multiple aspects of said fraudster's fraud. [/QUOTE]I see no evidence that Dembski is anything but an honourable and competent person. His breathrough insights into ID have been illuminating.

    [QUOTE='[-0-];87662434]When are you going to refute the paper you were asked to refute four years ago? [/QUOTE]Refuting papers or reviewing books is not what this forum is about. If you have any points to make, including points arising from any of the papers linked to, I'll be happy to respond.


    [QUOTE='[-0-];87662434]CFSI is wrong. Dembski knows it's wrong as well.[/QUOTE]That's like saying some other obvious fact like NS or gravity is 'wrong'.
    Its an objective reality that Complex Functional Specified Information exists ... whether everything claimed about it, by different people (including Dembski) is correct, is a different matter ... and I'd be glad to hear postings about this from anybody who wishes to do so.

    This is a developing area of research and undoubtedly as we learn more about it, hypotheses may change, just like in any other area of science.


  • #1214
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    One would be nice. Given the standard of J C's attempts at science, I don't believe he has so much as a diploma in the field. Hell, with the amount of incredibly basic stuff he gets wrong, it's plausible he never even took science in secondary school.
    Now your're just attacking my authority or characteristics ... classic Ad Hominism.
    ... I suppose we all should be grateful that it's not name calling:eek:!!!


  • #1215
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    J C wrote: »
    They are based on a plain reading of the Bible ... literally when a literal meaning is clearly meant in the context and the style ... and metaphorically, where this is also clearly indicated.

    I agree that a plain reading of the Bible is the way to go ... literally when a literal meaning is clearly meant in the context and the style ... and metaphorically, where this is also clearly indicated.



    You're out by a few orders of magnitude ... but you're certainly not the first person ... to accept this error!!!:)

    J C,

    It seems you may have some sort of agreement with o.n.w. here.

    What persuades you towards the literal reading over the metaphorical when it comes to the Noah story?


  • #1216
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    J C,

    It seems you may have some sort of agreement with o.n.w. here.
    I wouldn't go that far ... not would I suspect that oldrwiser would either.:)
    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    What persuades you towards the literal reading over the metaphorical when it comes to the Noah story?
    It seems to be an actual account of an actual real historical event.
    The only issue that seems to have been 'allegorised' is the lead in account that mysteriously refers to the 'sons of God' and the 'Nephilim' apparently engaging in nefarious sexual activity with women ... that is linked to the production of 'giants' ... and the emergence of widespread evil that is omipresent and constant.


  • #1217
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    J C wrote: »
    I see no evidence that Dembski is anything but an honourable and competent person. His breathrough insights into ID have been illuminating.

    Honourable? Competent? Breakthrough insights in Intelligent Design?
    There is nothing honourable or competent about a man who took his autistic son to a faith healer to try to cure him. There is nothing honourable or competent about a man who claims to be a scientist and is not. When Dembski encounters criticisms, he sometimes surreptitiously modifies his argument (without ever admitting error) so as to quietly slide out from the predicament caused by the criticism. These are NOT the actions of an honourable and competent man. He is playing around with pseudo-science claiming it is science. He has never written a scientific paper for peer review because he is a complete and utter fraud.
    Refuting papers or reviewing books is not what this forum is about. If you have any points to make, including points arising from any of the papers linked to, I'll be happy to respond.

    Are you kidding me? I've made many points to you in this thread and you have completely ignored them, as it suits your own flawed point of view to do so.
    That's like saying some other obvious fact like NS or gravity is 'wrong'.
    Its an objective reality that Complex Functional Specified Information exists ... whether everything claimed about by different people (including Dembski) is correct, is a different matter ... and I'd be glad to hear postings about this from anybody who wishes to do so.

    Alright then - CFSI is an argument proposed by Dembski which is wrong. Time and again you refuse to read the criticisms of this argument, while using this argument to try to defend your position. When asked to refute a paper which rips CFSI a new arsehole, you say that is not what this forum is about.

    Your actions are those of a person in severe denial and ignorance. Either that or you are a fraud as well.

    Go ahead, change my mind. Take me up on ONE of the propositions I have proposed to you.


  • #1218
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    Think about the irony of this. A fraudster who believes in Intelligent Design, has an autistic son and tries to have him cured by a faith healer. The man must believe god made his son this way, and he tries to defy god by trying to cure the child by a bloody faith healer?

    It's classic. :pac:


  • #1219
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    J C wrote: »
    I wouldn't go that far ... not would I suspect that oldrwiser would either.:)

    It seems to be an actual account of an actual real historical event.
    The only issue that seems to have been 'allegorised' is the lead in account that mysteriously refers to the 'sons of God' and the 'Nephilim' apparently engaging in nefarious sexual activity with women.

    O.k.

    lols @the first part.

    It s bedtime for me but tomorrow or during the week hopefully, I'll have a go at a metaphorical reading.

    It might throw something new into the mix.

    Nite.


  • #1220
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    [-0-] wrote: »
    Honourable? Competent? Breakthrough insights in Intelligent Design?
    There is nothing honourable or competent about a man who took his autistic son to a faith healer to try to cure him.
    It all depends on whether he also took his son to conventional doctors as well. As a Christian and Theologian, it wouldn't be unusual to pray over a family member who was ill or needed prayer.
    [-0-] wrote: »
    There is nothing honourable or competent about a man who claims to be a scientist and is not.
    This is his academic record taken from Wiki:-
    "Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Postdoctoral work in mathematics),
    University of Illinois at Chicago (B.A., M.S., PhD),
    Dembski ultimately completed an undergraduate degree in psychology (1981, University of Illinois at Chicago) and masters degrees in statistics, mathematics, and philosophy (1983, University of Illinois at Chicago; 1985, University of Chicago; 1993, University of Illinois at Chicago respectively), two PhDs, one in mathematics and one in philosophy (1988, University of Chicago; 1996, University of Illinois at Chicago respectively), and a Master of Divinity in theology at the Princeton Theological Seminary (1996)."

    It sounds like he could validly describe himself as a Philosopher or a mathematician or a Theologian.
    ... and his educational background would certainly have qualified him to pursue research into ID which calls for strong mathematical and philosophical skills.


    [-0-] wrote: »
    When Dembski encounters criticisms, he sometimes surreptitiously modifies his argument (without ever admitting error) so as to quietly slide out from the predicament caused by the criticism.
    Like what?

    [-0-] wrote: »
    These are NOT the actions of an honourable and competent man. He is playing around with pseudo-science claiming it is science. He has never written a scientific paper for peer review because he is a complete and utter fraud.
    Again you talk in vague generalisations.

    [-0-] wrote: »
    Are you kidding me? I've made many points to you in this thread and you have completely ignored them, as it suits your own flawed point of view to do so.
    I don't recall doing so ... there are many of ye and only one of me so I haven't got around to answering every post ... but I'm sure that if your point was a 'clincher' you would have hung it around my neck and asked for a response.


    [-0-] wrote: »
    Alright then - CFSI is an argument proposed by Dembski which is wrong. Time and again you refuse to read the criticisms of this argument, while using this argument to try to defend your position. When asked to refute a paper which rips CFSI a new arsehole, you say that is not what this forum is about.

    Your actions are those of a person in severe denial and ignorance. Either that or you are a fraud as well.

    Go ahead, change my mind. Take me up on ONE of the propositions I have proposed to you.
    Please show me one and I will.


  • #1221
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Please have a look here in relation to Ad Hominism as attacking people's authority or characteristics :-

    Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg


  • Advertisement
  • #1222
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    J C wrote: »

    This is his academic record taken from Wiki:-
    "Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Postdoctoral work in mathematics),
    University of Illinois at Chicago (B.A., M.S., PhD),
    Dembski ultimately completed an undergraduate degree in psychology (1981, University of Illinois at Chicago) and masters degrees in statistics, mathematics, and philosophy (1983, University of Illinois at Chicago; 1985, University of Chicago; 1993, University of Illinois at Chicago respectively), two PhDs, one in mathematics and one in philosophy (1988, University of Chicago; 1996, University of Illinois at Chicago respectively), and a Master of Divinity in theology at the Princeton Theological Seminary (1996)."

    It sounds like he could validly describe himself as a Philosopher or a mathematician or a Theologian.
    ... and his educational background would certainly have qualified him to pursue research into ID which calls for strong mathematical and philosophical skills.

    Mathematics is not a science. Again - the man has never written a scientific paper for peer review because he is a complete and utter fraud. He is not a scientist.
    Like what?

    Here is one example. In No Free Lunch an attempt to dispense with unknown material mechanisms was known as a "proscriptive generalization", but that term appears nowhere in Dembski's current revision of the book. To me this is a clear case of Dembski feeling the term was an unwise one, suggesting a degree of certainty that he cannot justify. He has not acknowledged any change in his argument. Dembski's frequent unacknowledged changes of terminology do nothing to enhance the clarity of his arguments. He does this purposely.
    Again you talk in vague generalisations.
    There is nothing general about saying that CFSI theory is not scientific, that the man has never written a scientific article in his life, ergo he is not a scientist but a fraudster. Those are quite specific arguments. To disagree with this you have to prove how CFSI is scientific. Show me a scientific article he wrote which was peer reviewed. The document Sarky and I linked you to rips CFSI apart and demonstrates how it is NOT in fact scientific.
    I don't recall doing so ... there are many of ye and only one of me ... and I'm sure if your point was a 'clincher' you would have hung it around my neck and asked for a response.

    Really? How about how ID is not a science. I said it here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87661124&postcount=1211


    Please show me one and I will.

    <> You cannot be that forgetful.

    Here is one: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87662547&postcount=1230
    Here is another: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87662469&postcount=1227
    Here's another: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87660729&postcount=1205
    Here's another: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87660682&postcount=1204
    Here's another: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87606095&postcount=759


  • #1223
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    [-0-] wrote: »
    Mathematics is not a science.

    That's the most controversial remark published in this thread so far.


  • #1224
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    Jernal wrote: »
    That's the most controversial remark published in this thread so far.

    That's pretty insulting Jernal, considering the crap JC has posted in here.


  • #1225
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    The controversial thing about mathematics is not whether it is a science or not (it absolutely is, and is in the words of Carl Friedrich Gauss; "the queen of the sciences"), but whether it is invented or discovered.


  • #1226
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    It is such a beautiful queen, probably the most beautiful of them all.


  • #1227
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    nagirrac wrote: »
    The controversial thing about mathematics is not whether it is a science or not (it absolutely is, and is in the words of Carl Friedrich Gauss; "the queen of the sciences"), but whether it is invented or discovered.

    Science certainly uses math to express various concepts, but it uses language too. Is language science?


  • #1228
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Who's the Hood again?
    [-0-] wrote: »
    Mathematics is not a science
    Mathematics is the "purest" science of all
    purity.png


  • #1229
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    Science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, for example dirac's equation is using math to explain a behaviour of the physical and natural world. It's like using English to explain it, that doesn't make English a science. Math is a tool the sciences use, it's not a science itself but it is close.

    Anyway, this is going down a path I don't wish the discussion to go. Feel free to start another thread about whether or not Mathematics is a science. It's an age old discussion.


  • #1230
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    [-0-] wrote: »
    Science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, for example dirac's equation is using math to explain a behaviour of the physical and natural world. It's like using English to explain it, that doesn't make English a science.

    Dirac's equation is not alone one of the best illustrations that mathematics is science, as it described nature accurately before it was experimentally verified, but also one of the best demonstrations that mathematics is discovered and not invented. The symbols used in mathematics are irrelevant, the salient point is as Feynman said "If you want to understand nature, you have to understand the language she speaks in", or as Dirac himself said "the laws of nature should be expressed in beautiful equations". Everything in nature is reducible to beautiful mathematics.

    There are only two basic requirements for something to be science, 1) the development of a theory that can be confirmed by objective evidence (observations or experiment) and 2) that the theory can be falsified by conflicting evidence. There is nothing wrong with forming a theory before validating it by experiment (the theory of relativity is a good example), but the more important requirement is that you have to be able to conceive of experiments to falsify your theory. This by the way is why creationist/ID is not science, as you cannot conceive of experiments to falsify it.

    As to whether mathematics is invented or discovered, a hotly debated topic but I think the following is quite compelling. Dirac's equation predicted how particles behave at relativistic velocities, and was the first theory that was consistent with QM and relativity. It also led to the seemingly impossible conclusion at the time that matter and anti-matter existed in nature. Dirac insisted that this was the way nature was, and indeed some years later anti-matter was discovered by Carl Anderson. If Dirac had invented his equation, then we would have to take seriously the idea that Dirac was God, due to the fact that nature obeyed the equation he invented. The more plausible explanation is that Dirac's equation lay undiscovered for the history of the universe up to 1928 and he found it.


  • Advertisement
  • #1231
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Dirac's equation is not alone one of the best illustrations that mathematics is science, as it described nature accurately before it was experimentally verified, but also one of the best demonstrations that mathematics is discovered and not invented. The symbols used in mathematics are irrelevant, the salient point is as Feynman said "If you want to understand nature, you have to understand the language she speaks in", or as Dirac himself said "the laws of nature should be expressed in beautiful equations". Everything in nature is reducible to beautiful mathematics.

    I agree with most of what you said, except for the start. Respectfully, of course. Using my definition of science above, Mathematics is not a science. It's a tool used by the sciences, just like a language.
    There are only two basic requirements for something to be science, 1) the development of a theory that can be confirmed by objective evidence (observations or experiment) and 2) that the theory can be falsified by conflicting evidence. There is nothing wrong with forming a theory before validating it by experiment (the theory of relativity is a good example), but the more important requirement is that you have to be able to conceive of experiments to falsify your theory. This by the way is why creationist/ID is not science, as you cannot conceive of experiments to falsify it.
    Is mathematics experimentally falsifiable? Are you claiming Godel's incompleteness theorems are going to make it not falsifiable? Agreed on the creationist bit, I outlined earlier in the thread why Intelligent Design is not a science, but rather a mission to find evidence which supports a predetermined conclusion.

    As to whether mathematics is invented or discovered, a hotly debated topic but I think the following is quite compelling. Dirac's equation predicted how particles behave at relativistic velocities, and was the first theory that was consistent with QM and relativity. It also led to the seemingly impossible conclusion at the time that matter and anti-matter existed in nature. Dirac insisted that this was the way nature was, and indeed some years later anti-matter was discovered by Carl Anderson. If Dirac had invented his equation, then we would have to take seriously the idea that Dirac was God, due to the fact that nature obeyed the equation he invented. The more plausible explanation is that Dirac's equation lay undiscovered for the history of the universe up to 1928 and he found it.

    Agreed.


Advertisement