The Scientific Method

[Tormod]

I obviously love the way this thread is turning out. *blush*

 

Bio has basically pinned me down correctly so I'll stand back and see how this evolves.

 

As for mathematics, I agree that it is not a science. It is however an important tool for science. Mathematicians are scientists, and good mathematicians are artists. Just like you can't have physics without mathematics, you can't have a photograph without a lens. But photography is only one way to see the world, and it can be twisted.

 

Therefore mathematics is a language of science, and not all sciences can be expressed mathematically. One example is psychology (although I am not sure how well the scientific method is applied by psychologists...).

[Tormod]

And that's WTWT.

[Turtle]

Therefore mathematics is a language of science, and not all sciences can be expressed mathematically. One example is psychology (although I am not sure how well the scientific method is applied by psychologists...).

 

___All science is mis-expressable by mathematics; especially psychology. Without statistics, psychology is nowhere. :surprise: When did you feel this way? How many times? How long did the feeling last? How many other people had the feeling? When? Etc..

___The same is true of any specialty in science. Science requires data, data requires accounting, accounting requires mathematics. Different data sets require different math systems, but they all require at least 1. :frown: (Devil's advocate) :surprise: TWTT

:confused:

[HydrogenBond]

Mathematics cane be useful for correlating real data and allows one to make predictions about future data and experiments. But it can also be self perpetuating apart from reality and reality data. In the dark and middle ages one of the debates was how many angels could balance on the head of a pin. One can make a mathematical prediction of this question, but it would be good math grounded on tenuous assumptions. If these assumptions are assumed true without any experimental proof the results could be totally fanatasy but would correlated the assumptions. Direct Data is pure, while assumptions are semi-pure. Math and theory can massage both.

[Turtle]

Mathematics cane be useful for correlating real data and allows one to make predictions about future data and experiments. But it can also be self perpetuating apart from reality and reality data. In the dark and middle ages one of the debates was how many angels could balance on the head of a pin. One can make a mathematical prediction of this question, but it would be good math grounded on tenuous assumptions. If these assumptions are assumed true without any experimental proof the results could be totally fanatasy but would correlated the assumptions. Direct Data is pure, while assumptions are semi-pure. Math and theory can massage both.

___This evades the issue of whether math is science or not; Tormod says math isn't science & I say it is. How do you side & why is the question now at hand. :surprise:

[HydrogenBond]

I point I was trying to make was that math is a two edge sword that can cut both ways. On the one hand, it is based on logic and logical relationshipswhich is also an important basis for science. For example, Einstein used math to make predictions about nature which were later shown to the true. His math approach worked as good or maybe better than experiental science because it required less expenditure of resources to get the same result.

 

On the other hand, math has another side that is not science. Math can start with bad assumptions, massage it with good math technique to predict something that is not real. For example, if I was to propose that gravity was due to the repulsion of space, even though this is erronoeus, it would not be too hard for a good math wizz to take the existing equations and make a reciprical of sorts, to create a new set of equations to support my theory. The math will still predict the same results as the experiments but would be solid set of math equations based on a fantasy view of reality. This good correlation is not good science. If anything it could hamper real science.

[Turtle]

On the other hand, math has another side that is not science. Math can start with bad assumptions, massage it with good math technique to predict something that is not real.

 

___You have mistaken mathematics for mathematicians here. I say again, there is no science without counting, or non-science for that matter. Math is both sufficient & necessary to science, but science is only sufficient to math. Without 1, there is nothing; no discussion, no example, no argument, nothing.Take any literature, argument, diagram, or any information whatsoever & it is founded in mathematics. A start implies ordination; you can't start anything or carry it forward without mathematics underlying it. How many ways can I say this? :surprise:

[emessay]

___You have mistaken mathematics for mathematicians here. I say again, there is no science without counting, or non-science for that matter. Math is both sufficient & necessary to science, but science is only sufficient to math. Without 1, there is nothing; no discussion, no example, no argument, nothing.Take any literature, argument, diagram, or any information whatsoever & it is founded in mathematics. A start implies ordination; you can't start anything or carry it forward without mathematics underlying it. How many ways can I say this? :surprise:

 

When we try to solve U=f(mass,energy,space,time) then we have always instinct mind of balance/unbalance with zero reference to express an idealistic equation :

 

So we make equation-----> U = "0" <------ "0",it's not real zero but it's zero axle reference.

This is basic instinct scientific method to hypothese working function, recycling with testability and falsifiability.

[Turtle]

When we try to solve U=f(mass,energy,space,time) then we have always instinct mind of balance/unbalance with zero reference to express an idealistic equation :

 

So we make equation-----> U = "0" <------ "0",it's not real zero but it's zero axle reference.

This is basic instinct scientific method to hypothese working function, recycling with testability and falsifiability.

 

___I say U = 1, presuming U means Universe. The superset if you like. That is my point in saying not only is math science, but it's non-science & anything you care to mention. U = 1, in the beginning, singularity, etc. All 1. Math, from the get-go; first. Recursive? Yes. Testable; relatively. Falsifiable; definately sometimes. Just like life. :surprise:

[shine11]

who needs who?? If we take it simplistically, if it were decreed that each should stand on its own, who would suffer, Maths or Science???

 

However, the fact that Maths is part of Science does not make it one. I mean, it has no pratical orientaion, unless it is applied as Physics, for instance. U can study Maths till the cows come home, and still not have mad the faintest difference. Can u say the same about Science?? :surprise:

 

By the way, anyne know any good online biochemistry journals??

nuff luv!

[Qfwfq]

Wheeeeeeeeee! :surprise: :shrug: :frown: ;) :( :(

 

As for mathematics, I agree that it is not a science. It is however an important tool for science.

Absolutely right. :surprise:

 

Mathematicians are scientists

Absolutely wrong. :surprise:

 

Just like you can't have physics without mathematics, you can't have a photograph without a lens.

You can have physics without math, you simply wouldn't get anywhere near as far. You can also have a camera without a lense. You simply need a long exposure time with a pinhole camera.

 

Therefore mathematics is a language of science, and not all sciences can be expressed mathematically. One example is psychology (although I am not sure how well the scientific method is applied by psychologists...).

No, it's a language. It's not a language of x, it's a language period. It "becomes" a tool for x when you find it useful for x. Of course, many users of math have contributed to it.

[HydrogenBond]

Math is its own entity. One can correlate almost any phenomena within nature with math. But math needs science to point out what needs to be correlated. It then become a powerful tool that can help science. Math can correlate the truth of nature or the fantasy of imagination. It needs science once again to help it tell the difference based on the results that it creates. One area where math breaks down is creativity. Creativity of new ideas or new products defies prediction, yet it still occurs all the time. Math may say a new product or idea will be created based on past experince but will be unable to say what it will be. This gets more distant the more quantum or the more unprecedented the innovation.

[Qfwfq]

No, :surprise: math doesn't need science to point out what needs to be correlated.

 

Math doesn't care what in nature, or in anything else, needs to be correlated and math is more than just correlation. That's only a problem of those who use math. Mathematicians invent their own mathematical entities, they can define them abstractly and they can also construct them in terms of other defined things.

[HydrogenBond]

I agree with you that math has a life of its own. I was responding to math and science and how they interrelate. Each new approach within math is spawned from other math independant of science. New math techniques with a range of scientific application appear all the time.

[emessay]

Let's take quote from Turtle :

"Mathematics is the axle of creation." - Roger Thelonious George

Mathematics is the axle of creation but how should we appreciate it being meaningful

in our mind ?

Let's say U = 1, but we always have basic instinct to make it zero balance -> U-1= 0

Why ??

Take observation of human body weight and height correlation, we need to conclude how is an idealistic weight for a human. Could mathematic help us the answer ?

175 cm --> 85 kg

195 cm --> 85 kg

190 cm --> 125 kg

180 cm --> 68 kg

200 cm --> 135 kg

At least we need to express in mathematic relation so we need to buy one graphical map of 'T'sai Lun paper' and certainly need to create 'Cartesian axle' at least ( X,Y ) = (0,0) as zero reference.

 

But why we enjoy to have conclusion that --> idealistic weight = height - 110 ???

[Turtle]

At least we need to express in mathematic relation so we need to buy one graphical map of 'T'sai Lun paper' and certainly need to create 'Cartesian axle' at least ( X,Y ) = (0,0) as zero reference.

 

But why we enjoy to have conclusion that --> idealistic weight = height - 110 ???

 

___We don't enjoy that false conclusion no; because it is false.

___I don't understand the reference to the inventor of paper Tsai Lun? Is there a special graph layout associated with it?

___Yes we label it 0,0; 0,0 is the label of what? Why the 1 (one) center of course. When it is said mathematics is the axle of creation, it means that everything turns on it, that is relies on mathematics for a common support . Furthermore, Buckminster Fuller's tetrahedral space is decidedly not Cartersian but an axle nonetheless.

_