Comments on: The Role of Mathematics and Rational Arguments in Science

By: Md Santo

Md Santo — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 17:46:21 +0000

Decreasing Role of Math and Rational Arguments in Science :

• Within Data (D), Information (I), Knowledge (K), Wisdom (W) or DIKW continuum which was becoming human scientific mindset model since 17th century, the role of math and rational thinking is very crucial in Science. It is represented in step-by-step “deducto – hypothetico – verificative” way of scientific thinking

• But, beginning the dawn of 21st century, where the continuum of DI are very matured and advance, further step is KW era in which the role of Knowledge becoming very prominent. In this situation, the border of Science shifted to the right where the border of Science with Pseudo Science or Metaphysic becomming blurred.

• The important changes is the behavior of DI as object without consciousness becoming KW acting as subject with consciousness and freewill. Science within domain of DI as “Scientific Knowledge” becoming “Knowledgeable Science” within domain of KW with becoming less crucial of the role of Math and Rational arguments

• How do we addressing the era or domain of post DI or within domain of KW and beyond? In this situation for the sake of future Science we should embark from DIKW model with paradigm of ““Mind Brain or Human Being is the source and center of Consciousness” toward the paradigm of “The Universe or the Nature Knowledge is the source and center of Consciousness”

• To clarify the above statements, should you visit the following URLs :
http://bit.ly/GARHO2 (“Important considerations why the limit of Science should shifted to the right” ),
http://bit.ly/H755iW (“2012 is “Jump Time” to make “Great Turning” from DIKW continuum toward Nature Knowledge continuum within Science evolution”) and http://bit.ly/I9pfUp (“Comprehensive Guide to Future Science Environment : Decomposing Knowledge with Inverted Paradigm Method”)

By: Nir

Nir — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:11:44 +0000

I agree with most of what’s written, but not all. You yourself describe science as being about making precise predictions that are verifiable (or more accurately, falsifiable). Yet you then include Carl Linnaeus’ work as science. While it is important to build a scientific vocabulary, what exactly are the precise predictions of his theory, tested against experiment? Observing things and writing them down does not constitute science, and this is the objection that I (and many other physicists) have to so many areas of other sciences. Darwin’s theory highlights the difficulty of verifying theories without mathematics: deprived of mathematics and numerical agreement, one is generally reduced to much more general observations that are very easily observed by a variety of theories. When Darwin’s theory was introduced, there really was not any competition for it (I don’t count creationism as competition, because it’s not even attempting to be a scientific theory). Without any understanding of genetics (not known in Darwin’s time), it is virtually impossible to have any reasonable model of evolution. Every time I’ve ever read the key paragraphs of Darwin’s theory, I’ve always thought to myself: this is practically tautological, minus the stroke of genius in understanding inheritance of traits.
This is why theories need math. The theory of evolution currently says something very much: populations become more fit, where fitness is defined as reproductive capacity, because segments that reproduce more dominate the next generation and give their children the same advantages. To people who grew up without believing in Creationism, this statement just isn’t a big deal. However, quantifying the effects of randomness versus directedness in evolution, i.e. drift vs niche evolution, is a quantifiable aspect of the theory that has sparked much debate in the last couple of decades. And making a statement about which of these forces is dominant, and by how much, is a quantifiable, testable prediction, that of course, requires math.

By: chrisanto

chrisanto — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:05:09 +0000

re: Bertrand Russell’s ‘Principia Mathematica’ proof of 1+1=2 (or 2+2=4) based on logical propositions….I understand that the entire PM relies on 3 base axioms which must be true for all of mathematics to follow logically. I find it fascinating to consider discovering a case where these axioms fail.

By: fluidic

fluidic — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:24:20 +0000

Physics and the physical universe was created and preceeded math. Math is the best tool that was naturally developed to take good care of the measuring, slicing, counting, adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, predicting, scaling, looking, viewing, proportioning, etc our physical objects in the universe following the BGBG and creation.

Why would anyone require math if there is no use for it? since after BGBG, the universe needed math and we are still inherting math just like students inherit MATHLAB, CATIA, FLUENT etc to solve their difficult problems. They keep contributing to these software giant developers like we contribute to the development of math tools everyday.

Physics preceded math which preceded all sciences.

By: Uncle Al

Uncle Al — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 18:54:34 +0000

Organic synthesis proceeds tolerably well with little beyond arithmetic. Bullvalene is remarkable not only for having no static structure (pundits stated doubts prior to synthesis). The two-step synthesis, with no added reagents, ends with the byproduct being bullvalene’s crystallization solvent.

Math has it uses, e.g., bosinos and sleptons. Imagination and its reduction to practice can be louder in context.

By: Cormac

Cormac — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:07:04 +0000

I love the way reading an equation backwards or sideways often giwes a new insight into the relation between the variables, especially in physics. F = ma defines force as an influence that causes a change in motion while a = F/m defines mass as a resistance to motion etc.
People who dislike math miss out on the power of equations to force us to consider the relation between variables from every angle

By: Science, Math & Tech | Pearltrees

Science, Math & Tech | Pearltrees — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 12:36:47 +0000

[...] For an activity to be science, it is neither necessary, nor sufficient, for it to involve math. Astrology uses very precise mathematics to calculate the planetary positions, but that does not make it science any more than using a hammer makes one a carpenter (Ouch, my finger!). Similarly, not using math does not necessarily mean one is not doing science any more than not using a hammer means one is not a carpenter. Quantum Diaries [...]

By: Cibele

Cibele — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 00:15:24 +0000

Math is definitely the language of the Universe. Congratulations!!!

By: Mike Will

Mike Will — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 21:08:05 +0000

Did mathematics exist before mathematicians? If so, then is the ‘language of the universe’ deductive logic? Hmmm. I look at the recent success of inductive methods (algorithms instead of formulae) and wonder. Byron, my take away from the essay is the first sentence and last sentence. Thanks again.

By: Dean

Dean — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 07:35:50 +0000

As a Mathematian I find science (especially quantum mechanics) to be an incredibly beautiful applications of mathematics as a language.

That said from math looking into physics, I often consider myself to be exploring the language in which the universe speaks to us; hether we understand what it is saying or not. There are many areas where Mathematics doesn’t seem to have a completely real application but I normally consider that to be akin to studying language structures which we have not experienced yet. That something can be phrased mathematically doesn’t mean it is true, but means that it represents a rational argument (though not necessarily scientific argument, string theory is an example). When physics searches for a grand unified theory I can only hope that at some point in time the more abstract theories of Mathematics can be joined real observations, describing real systems.

By: Bent Rothenberg

Bent Rothenberg — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 06:42:41 +0000

Equations are purely math,in nature time contnues,to me we should use => and not =,this implies that,once decided what is the beging of our function f(x)=y combined with the time t the diffence between math and physics would be math f(x)t=yt physics f(x)t=> yt,it means no going backwards,so to create the Big Bang,nesseraly there must have been something before, the happening,it could not have come out of nothing.
Look at a cell under electromicroscope and look at our galaxie,the look very much alike,the style of making organic living things,has used the forms allready created in the universe.Our solar system looks like an atom or rather a mixture of H = He²,where Jupiter would bee the electron of H nad Saturn Uranus the elctrons of He²,the smaller planets would bee quarks and other exotic particles!