| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44369 Posts
On May 12 2015 17:04 Silvanel wrote: Abstract logic/deep math (as in core/basic mathematical problems). I agree with you that mathematics can become incredibly difficult (although of course, every subject has its spectrum of difficulty), but I think a more interesting question is: Is abstract mathematics a science in the first place? | ||
|
oGoZenob
France1503 Posts
On May 12 2015 22:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I agree with you that mathematics can become incredibly difficult (although of course, every subject has its spectrum of difficulty), but I think a more interesting question is: Is abstract mathematics a science in the first place? Yes it is, in the sense that it is making the tools that we are using in other field of science | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44369 Posts
On May 12 2015 22:19 oGoZenob wrote: Yes it is, in the sense that it is making the tools that we are using in other field of science I agree that mathematics is the language of science, and a universal language at that. Does that mean it is a science though? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On May 12 2015 22:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I agree that mathematics is the language of science, and a universal language at that. Does that mean it is a science though? Does it matter? You have a fork in the road, and one path leads to math as science and the other leads to math as....well, probably just math. What's the meaningful difference? | ||
|
oGoZenob
France1503 Posts
On May 12 2015 22:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I agree that mathematics is the language of science, and a universal language at that. Does that mean it is a science though? well, there is daily breakthrough in a lot of mathematical fileds, with a lot of people devoting their life to further our mathematical knowledge. On a more pragmatical way, there is a shit-ton of math peer-reviewed journals, so that qualifies as within the domain of scientific method ^^ | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[ Not sure if maths qualifies for that definition. Probably not. Further down in the same article Whether mathematics itself is properly classified as science has been a matter of some debate. Some thinkers see mathematicians as scientists, regarding physical experiments as inessential or mathematical proofs as equivalent to experiments. Others do not see mathematics as a science, since it does not require an experimental test of its theories and hypotheses. Mathematical theorems and formulas are obtained by logical derivations which presume axiomatic systems, rather than the combination of empirical observation and logical reasoning that has come to be known as the scientific method. In general, mathematics is classified as formal science, while natural and social sciences are classified as empirical sciences. So well, as long as you refer to it as a "formal science" I guess most won't argue with you. It definitely isn't an empirical science.  Anyway, building tools for science is close enough to science that it doesn't matter. And in practice, research in most areas of math can be regarded as fundamental research in some field that uses that area of math. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44369 Posts
On May 12 2015 22:22 farvacola wrote: Does it matter? You have a fork in the road, and one path leads to math as science and the other leads to math as....well, probably just math. What's the meaningful difference? I don't think there is a meaningful difference; both mathematics and science contribute to our knowledge, and that's all I really care about at the end of the day  I was just wondering about the technical classification since it was mentioned that the most difficult science might be mathematics. Relevant: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EyVTBSm.png) | ||
|
helpman173
20 Posts
All of it is based on real world objects and shapes. Things got a bit out of hand since then, but I think mathematics still can be seen as a science that is rooted in empiricism. Otherwise you would have to say that string theory or molecular dynamics also are not science. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 12 2015 19:33 Simberto wrote: I don't think this is correct. I would argue that almost everyone believes they are one of the good guys (As far as i know there are only a very small amount of exceptions, nearly noone believes that they are an asshole themselves) Thus, what you believe you are does not give you any additional information regarding the question whether you are an asshole or not. You might be an asshole, or not, but there is no distinct information in any direction. More moderate approach to the situation is that you are probably an asshole sometimes, and a good guy sometimes. Very few people are consistantly assholes or good guys. My anecdotal experience has every guy that isn't me being perceived (by me) as the asshole. My guess is that this is the same for all guys where the perception is that the "other dude" is the asshole. So logically, we are all the assholes--just depends on who you ask.  + Show Spoiler + But yeah, you're approximation is about correct I think (or at least I believe so). | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 12 2015 23:38 helpman173 wrote: Mathematics has its roots in counting apples, building pyramids and cutting cakes. All of it is based on real world objects and shapes. Things got a bit out of hand since then, but I think mathematics still can be seen as a science that is rooted in empiricism. Otherwise you would have to say that string theory or molecular dynamics also are not science. I think the argument is if you can really call the language of something the thing itself. For example, the concept of the English language is, itself, not a form of communication, narrative, or discourse--but simply the means of which to engage in dialogue to produce those things. You are not a poet just because you know English You are not a scientists just because you know math The question is--does the study of the language of a field equal the work in that field. For example--does test tube equal chemistry or is it simply a tool in chemistry, but is not chemistry itself. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44369 Posts
On May 12 2015 23:43 Thieving Magpie wrote: I think the argument is if you can really call the language of something the thing itself. For example, the concept of the English language is, itself, not a form of communication, narrative, or discourse--but simply the means of which to engage in dialogue to produce those things. You are not a poet just because you know English You are not a scientists just because you know math The question is--does the study of the language of a field equal the work in that field. For example--does test tube equal chemistry or is it simply a tool in chemistry, but is not chemistry itself. Right, and I'd imagine that scientific fields like string theory and molecular dynamics- although heavily mathematical and formulaic- still can propose hypotheses and hypothetically evaluate data (and in general, follow the scientific method) to assess its empirical accuracy, even if the technology isn't there yet + Show Spoiler + Blizzard (TM). I don't know if writing mathematical proofs, for example, constitutes an implementation of the scientific method. I think there are a lot of parallels, but once a proof is established and the axioms and steps are accepted, there generally isn't a community dedicated to gathering observational and empirical data with an aim to falsify that proof (as is the case in the scientific community). | ||
|
Zdrastochye
Ivory Coast6262 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 13 2015 00:04 Zdrastochye wrote: How screwed would pseudo-intellectualism be if the Internet ceased to exist? It existed long before the internet dear sir. | ||
|
oGoZenob
France1503 Posts
On May 12 2015 22:34 Cascade wrote: Wiki: Not sure if maths qualifies for that definition. Probably not. Further down in the same article So well, as long as you refer to it as a "formal science" I guess most won't argue with you. It definitely isn't an empirical science. Anyway, building tools for science is close enough to science that it doesn't matter. And in practice, research in most areas of math can be regarded as fundamental research in some field that uses that area of math. One could argue that math is science itself, since it's the purest form of scientific method, because it only uses logic and logic only | ||
|
UdderChaos
United Kingdom707 Posts
On May 13 2015 00:35 oGoZenob wrote: One could argue that math is science itself, since it's the purest form of scientific method, because it only uses logic and logic only Science becomes math when you gather all the possible knowledge in a field, whether that’s through actually gathering almost all information, or technology means you cannot obtain a substantial amount of more information (see astrophysics which has become basically math), since mathematics is the study of logical relationships of abstracted entities in essence. Pure mathematics is discovery of new techniques and relationships, applied mathematics and science is the application of these by replacing the abstract entities with realised information/data | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On May 13 2015 00:04 Zdrastochye wrote: How screwed would pseudo-intellectualism be if the Internet ceased to exist? That question itself is full of pseudo-intellectualism, since said pseudo-intellectualism pretty much always existed. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44369 Posts
On May 13 2015 00:35 oGoZenob wrote: One could argue that math is science itself, since it's the purest form of scientific method, because it only uses logic and logic only So are you implying that a mathematical proof for every scientific idea would be ideal? I'm not really sure what you mean by "the purest form of the scientific method", as the methodology includes far more things (gathering empirical data, falsifiability, repeatability, etc.) than a math proof. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On May 13 2015 01:06 OtherWorld wrote: That question itself is full of pseudo-intellectualism, since said pseudo-intellectualism pretty much always existed. But does this response contain pseudo-intellectualism? Where does it end??? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44369 Posts
On May 13 2015 02:46 Yoav wrote: But does this response contain pseudo-intellectualism? Where does it end??? If we're honestly assessing these responses, then I don't think "How screwed would pseudo-intellectualism be if the Internet ceased to exist?" is pseudo-intellectual, as such a question could very well be assessed empirically and not merely asked as a stunt to look smart (by, say, term-dropping "pseudo-intellectualism"). For example, we could have the perspective that perhaps without such access to misinformation (and not truly understanding what information is accurate) on the internet, coupled with the fact that now people have global and social networking podiums and forums to say pretty much anything they want, it's much easier for people to become pseudo-intellectual. Before the internet, I'd imagine it was much harder to spread your smug and absurd opinion. Simply put, any idiot can write a blog now. | ||
|
helpman173
20 Posts
On May 13 2015 00:04 Zdrastochye wrote: How screwed would pseudo-intellectualism be if the Internet ceased to exist? I'm wondering where you draw the line between intellectuals and pseudointellectuals? Wikipedia says: "Pseudointellectuals are self-described intellectuals who fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship" So if I throw in some citations and use high-brow language am I save from being called a pseudo-intellectual? Consider the following people: Juergen Habermas Shira Tarrant Lars Peter Hansen Anthony Giddens Noam Chomsky They are all certainly considered intellectuals, but do they all follow "rigorous standards of scholarship"? How are those rigorous standards defined? When is something not "rigorous" anymore? Where does the pseudointellectual end and the intellectual begin? | ||
| ||
|
|
|
EPT
