Many people have likened my view of science to that of Karl Popper. At the same time, they insist that the philosophy exemplified by Thomas Kuhn has 'replaced' that of Popper and that my views have therefor been shown to be wrong. So I read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" to see what it was all about. The book was interesting, though much of the philosophy has already reached a wider audience. His claims did not contradict my own. What Kuhn describes as 'crises' are made possible by falsifiability. Falsifiability makes them inevitable, whereas the absence of falsifiability makes them impossible. This is why the unscientific aspects of the theory of evolution have not contributed to what would generally be regarded as progress, beyond the theory itself, whereas natural selection has.

Kuhn does criticise Popper directly on one occasion in the book. He attributes to Popperian philosophy the claim that scientific progress, crises and revolutions occur as a result of conscious attempts at falsification. While I cannot claim to represent Popper or his followers, such a claim is not part of the arguments I have made regarding the nature of science.

What Kuhn describes are the emergent properties of scientific endevour. His contribution was a description of the behaviour of scientists as a group that is historically accurate, and necessary given the tendency of the general public, and scientists themselves, to confuse historical references used to aid the communication of the current paradigm with accurate descriptions of how the current paradigm came about. However, scientists should recognise the same patterns in their own work, for the 'publishable work' they end up with does not necessarily reflect the method by which they arrived at their conclusion. Rather, it reflects the benefit of hindsight and the most effective way to communicate their findings. Historical accuracy is only necessary in the descriptions of the actual experiments, however the real creative contribution is how the scientist came to use that experiment.

Kuhn does make an attempt to discover what it is about science that ultimately sets it apart from other fields, however the aspects he describes are again emergent properties which depend upon a focus on empirically falsifiable hypotheses, theories and laws.

Where he does mention evolution, he makes no distinction between the falsifiable and non-falsiable aspects of the theory.

Most of the apparent disagreement is due to a different focus. Falsifiability focusses on what scientists do first in the development of new ideas. Kuhn's work describes what they do last. The processes that Kuhn describes are, to a large extent, inevitable when scientists get it right from the start. The is a tendency to focus on the outcome in deciding what is science, however this focus is not necessary and is the reason why Kuhn is unable to answer that question in any fundamental way.

freediver still playing games.

"Kuhn does make an attempt to discover what it is about science that ultimately sets it apart from other fields, however the aspects he describes are again emergent properties which depend upon a focus on empirically falsifiable hypotheses, theories and laws. "

Paraphrasing you are saying that Kuhn's ideas of science depend on "empirically falsifiable hypotheses". Bullshit. He says nothing of the sort - you are just making it up.

"There is a tendency to focus on the outcome in deciding what is science, however this focus is not necessary and is the reason why Kuhn is unable to answer that question in any fundamental way."

Paraphrasing you are saying Kuhn is unable to say "what is science". So, you deny that this great philosopher is able to say what science is. Strange that a God loving/fearing crank like you have no problem in telling us all what science is, and is not, despite your views being opposed by the whole scientific world and every poster on this forum. However, I see that the pope has just again supported your view - is that where you got it from?

I've said that freediver is playing games. By this I mean that he is not concerned with the truth of the relative positions but rather he is concerned with the argument and its process itself. He has armed himself with a few spurious propositions and many red herrings and hopes by a process of confusion to appear to win the argument. By this method he hopes to open a door very slightly through which he will then try get all the other mumbo-jumbo nonsense past the threshhold. It is possible to succeed in such an approach - certainly in terms of how the argument may appear to uninitiated observers. I'm sure he has been trained in this - Jehovahs Witnesses certainly are. But this would still leave his assertions as being nonsense and the contrary assertions being valid.
An example is St Anselm's ontoligical proof of God which even the great Bertrand Russell had problems in showing to be nonsense. However, Anselm's proposition remained and remains nonsense despite any argumentative niceties arising from the game. No utterances by freediver can alter the fact that evolution is science and religious assertions remain nonsense.

Is freediver a Jehovahs witness?

I agree with you, sense.

His avatar is instructive. The name "freediver" indicates a determination to go as far as possible with nothing but a mouth full of hot air.  :)

....and there's also that picture of him holding that big fish...  ;)

However, being the greenie (or cheapskate) that I am, I'm hoping to heat my house this winter with freediver's hot air, so I'll continue to throw in my two cents from time to time, to (hopefully) keep the discussion rolling.

Shithouse rat...  ;D  ;D  ;D

Freediver, tell me, at what exact point in time to you consider the science sprung into being? Or will you accept that science is a loosely defined term which describes the behaviour of human curiosity and investigation. The first men to have created stone cutting tools, spears and axes, did they not apply the methods of science to arrive at those ends? Did they then rely on empiricism in their scientific endeavours? I think you will find the answers are a resounding yes and no respectively...

At this point I would like to take issue with some more of your article on evolution, firstly:

Quote:

The ancient greeks did not come up with a systematic way of studying nature, nor did they separate what we now know as science from other fields of study. Instead, they would sit under and olive tree with a bottle of wine and argue about the nature of the universe. As you would expect they didn't get very far.

Of course, Pythagoras (trigonometry, pi), Hippasus (irrational numbers), Oenopides (determined the angle of inclination from the equator to the suns path), Aristotle (early definitions of logic), Callippus (determined the length of the year in days hours minutes with reasonable accuracy by modern standards), Democritus (determined the volume of a cone or pyramid to be one third the volume of a cylinder or prism of the same base), Archimedes (archimedes screw, bouyancy etc, more discoveries than can be mentioned here), Hipparchus (trigonometry used in astronomy, motion of the moon and sun), Perseus (spiric intersection of a torus and plane), Eudoxus (early models of the solar system), were all just sitting around getting drunk and not studying nature in any meaningful way... and the list goes on and on and on, clearly the ancient greeks did not come up with a systematic way to study nature at all ::)

Oh and if you don't want to consider maths to be science then heres some ancient greek technological advances: (from wikipedia)

Quote:

Notable Greek technological inventions include cranes, screws, gears, organs, odometer, dial and pointer devices, wheelbarrows, diving bells, parchment, crossbows, torsion catapults, rutways, showers, roof tiles, breakwaters, the MULTI.cannon and many more innovations. Greek technicians were pioneers in three of the first four means of non-human propulsion known prior to the Industrial Revolution: watermills, windwheels, and steam engines, although only water power became extensively used in ancient Greece.

Yep, didn't get far at all did they freediver?

Of course we have advanced beyond the simple methods of ancient times, but to suggest that because the ancient greeks did not follow modern scientific methods  they were not engaged in science is pure ignorance. You cannot put the cart before the horse, every technological development since the earliest tools required the use of some form of scientific method.

Now, this statement is profoundly stupid:

Quote:

Why is it that science arose in very few cultures and only persisted to turn into a rigourous self correcting discipline in judeo christian societies?

Say WHAT??

Of course, gunpowder, shipbuilding, plumbing, surgery, archery, masonry & pottery, architecture, use of concrete, the wheel, metallurgy, indeed every single piece of technology invented before the time of the bible, all of these technological advances did not employ the methods of science in their creation? I suppose people just haplessly bumbled upon these things in their drunken stupor? Right?

You describe the modern scientific method as though it is the only scientific method, you suggest that science arose during the renaissance. Indeed it did become far more rigorous and this lead to a great many new inventions and an acceleration of technological development during the renaissance, but to suggest that all scientific discoveries made before the rise of the modern scientific method are unscientific is just stupid freediver. To even think that the modern scientific method and the rapid increase in discovery from the renaissance could have arisen without the scientific discoveries methods and technologies of the past, dating back to those first tools used by humans, is pure ignorance of the historical development of science.

Of course this is hardly relevant to the evolution debate since evolution adheres to to all modern scientific methods, but I just thought I would highlight some more of that broad, generalised, unresearched ignorance in your evolution article. More crap that tries to give christianity the glory for everything.

Ancient greeks achieved nothing much.... gold freediver, thats absolute gold ::)

Only christian cultures have had scientific advancements.... pure gold, I'm laughing my @ss off here ::)

Whats that? You weren't joking??

He says nothing of the sort - you are just making it up.

I didn't say that he said it.

Paraphrasing you are saying Kuhn is unable to say "what is science".

No not paraphrasing, criticising.

So, you deny that this great philosopher is able to say what science is.

He even admits it himself.

However, I see that the pope has just again supported your view - is that where you got it from?

As far as I know, all the pope has said is that creationism is not a scientific theory. I am saying that evolution is not a scientific theory.

But this would still leave his assertions as being nonsense and the contrary assertions being valid.  

If that were true, you would be able to point it out.

Freediver, tell me, at what exact point in time to you consider the science sprung into being?

I don't think you can say it arose at a single point in time, just as Kuhn pointed out that a theory arises gradually over time. However, in general it arose during what historians call 'the scientific revolution.' That is, after the renaissance. At least, that is when the scientific method was institutionalised. Obviously people used it out of intuition before then, and I think it did appear in some texts.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/history-modern-scientific-method.html

Of course, Pythagoras (trigonometry, pi), Hippasus (irrational numbers), Oenopides (determined the angle of inclination from the equator to the suns path), Aristotle (early definitions of logic), Callippus (determined the length of the year in days hours minutes with reasonable accuracy by modern standards), Democritus (determined the volume of a cone or pyramid to be one third the volume of a cylinder or prism of the same base), Archimedes (archimedes screw, bouyancy etc, more discoveries than can be mentioned here), Hipparchus (trigonometry used in astronomy, motion of the moon and sun), Perseus (spiric intersection of a torus and plane), Eudoxus (early models of the solar system), were all just sitting around getting drunk and not studying nature in any meaningful way... and the list goes on and on and on, clearly the ancient greeks did not come up with a systematic way to study nature at all

Trig, irrational numbers, logic, volume of a cone etc are not scientific. Obviously they did achieve some things, which is why using the term 'the ancient greeks' means anything at all. But they did not achieve much, because failure to use the scientific method held them back. Even the angle to the sun is just an observation.

Of course, gunpowder, shipbuilding, plumbing, surgery, archery, masonry & pottery, architecture, use of concrete, the wheel, metallurgy, indeed every single piece of technology invented before the time of the bible, all of these technological advances did not employ the methods of science in their creation? I suppose people just haplessly bumbled upon these things in their drunken stupor? Right?

You are arguing based on the outcomes that other people achieved. That doesn't mean that they achieved a rigourous, self correcting discipline. Much of the advances we have seen in the last few centuries came about by adopting methods that lead to the abandonment of many of the burdens placed on academics by ancient ways of doing things.

Trial and error is not a scientifi method.

Indeed it did become far more rigorous and this lead to a great many new inventions and an acceleration of technological development during the renaissance, but to suggest that all scientific discoveries made before the rise of the modern scientific method are unscientific is just stupid freediver.

Which is why I employ the term 'the modern scientific method' when describing the history of it's development. In the other articles, when I use the term science, I am obviously referring to the modern usage of the term, not what passed for science thousands of years ago.

To even think that the modern scientific method and the rapid increase in discovery from the renaissance could have arisen without the scientific discoveries methods and technologies of the past, dating back to those first tools used by humans, is pure ignorance of the historical development of science.

Sure, the ancients aquired some knowledge, most of which turned out to be wrong. I am not saying that nothing was discovered about nature prior to the modern scientific method. I am saying that progress was clearly floundering until it was adopted. History backs me up on this. That is why, for example, historians call it the scientific revolution.

Did you know that prior to the modern scientific method, unicorns were still drawn alongside real animals in texts, even though the scholars knew they didn't exist? That was because no-one saw the need to even separate the study of nature from the study of myth. The characteristics of a unicorn were just as important as those of a pig.

Maths is not scientific? You are an utter fruit loop.

Methodical, logical analysis of naturally observed phenomena... nope that sure couldn't be science!

This is like arguing with a brick wall...

Methodical, logical analysis of naturally observed phenomena... nope that sure couldn't be science!

It is not sufficient to make it science, otherwise dividing a bunch of rocks according to their colour would be scientific.

From Kuhn's book (3rd edition), p168, chapter XIII, Progress through revolutions

"The bulk of scientific knowledge is a product of Europe in the last four centuries. No other place and time has supported the very special communities from which scientific productivity comes."

Remember, this is from the guy who is famous worldwide as THE historian of science.

First point - I think freediver really is a Jehovahs Witness. I asked him a while back if he was in the United Church and he said no. Oceanblue asked him this time if he was a JW and he has chosen not to answer. I think that clears it up.

Freediver - you admit that you can tell us what science is but Kuhn and others cannot?

To correct you - the pope supports your assertion that evolution is not science (in the news last week) - that's why I thought you must have got the idea from him. But I suppose being a JW you don't listen to the RCs.

Regarding: "But this would still leave his assertions as being nonsense and the contrary assertions being valid. "
and your reply  "If that were true, you would be able to point it out. "
You have totally missed the point I was making. I'm sure I made it clearly. It is just not a straightforward matter to point out the errors in nonsense. As I said, Bertrand Russell had problems in that direction. Note Jefferson's statement that ridicule is the only weapon available when propositions are not reasoned. Hence the universal ridicule by the posters here of your position.
Zoso, being the civil and respectful person is continues to try to apply reason and point out the nonsense. But the attempt is doomed.

ps your last post with the Kuhn quote might have been effective but for the word "bulk" which destroys your point. A random history of science book I just checked begins in 2,400,000 BC with hominids in Africa manufacturing stone tools. No one other than you questions whether this is science - of course it is. I'm wasting my time but with your defintion all astronomy is not science. We can hardly do an experiment on Sirius.
Find me a scientist, or any rational person who says that astronomy is not science. Time for you to give up and join the sane.

the pope supports your assertion that evolution is not science (in the news last week)

Damn, I must have missed that. Thanks for letting me know. Do you have a link by any chance?

It is just not a straightforward matter to point out the errors in nonsense.

Yes it is.

ps your last post with the Kuhn quote might have been effective but for the word "bulk" which destroys your point.

No it doesn't. As I pointed out, the method may have been used much earlier. It just wasn't institutionalised until then. Furthermore, Kuhn does not define science, only links it to 'progress'. What I claimed was that the ancients didn't get very far because they weren't using the scientific method. I did not claim that they achieved nothing.

A random history of science book I just checked begins in 2,400,000 BC with hominids in Africa manufacturing stone tools.

Can I suggest a history of technology would have been a more appropriate title. A lot of what you describe sounds more like engineering than science. And yes, engineers do understand the difference between what they do and science.

We can hardly do an experiment on Sirius.

Luckily Sirius is not a theory then.

So - you really are a JW. Do they sponser you?

;D

Is this what you mean?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=pope-says-science-too-nar&chanId=sa003&modsrc=reuters

The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

"Science has opened up large dimensions of reason ... and thus brought us new insights," Benedict, a former theology professor, said at the closed-door seminar with his former doctoral students last September that the book documents.

"But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need. Its results lead to questions that go beyond its methodical canon and cannot be answered within it," he said.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1609537,00.html

In a new book, Creation and Evolution, published Wednesday in German, the Pope praised progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.

It is close to my argument, I'll admit that, though I have no idea why you thought I was somehow 'following' this with my theory:

However, I see that the pope has just again supported your view - is that where you got it from?

The idea of proof is not really part of science, and most scientists realise that their theories will one day be disproven (except of course the unscientific ones which escape scientific investigation). However, the Pope steers well clear of trying to define science. Not that I think he is deliberately hiding his views, he is probably just like the majority of citizens who associate science loosly with technology and progress but don't seek a more meaningful definition.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 10:50am:

From Kuhn's book (3rd edition), p168, chapter XIII, Progress through revolutions "The bulk of scientific knowledge is a product of Europe in the last four centuries. No other place and time has supported the very special communities from which scientific productivity comes." Remember, this is from the guy who is famous worldwide as THE historian of science.

Note carefully the use of the word "bulk"...............

::) ::) ::) ::)

Yes I noted it, and responded to your point in my post: Reply #11 - Today at 2:19pm

"It is close to my argument, I'll admit that, though I have no idea why you thought I was somehow 'following' this with my theory."

It's a very good match. Almost perfect.

The timing doesn't bother you at all? You really think I could have gotten my views from his even though I published mine a few years earlier?

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 1:19pm:

And yes, engineers do understand the difference between what they do and science.

If by that you mean one word: 'applied' science. To claim that engineering is not rooted in science you are an ignorant fool but we already worked that part out.

Also, the bulk thing doesn't contradict my view because "scientific knowledge" does not have to be developed by someone following the scientific method in an active sense. It just has to be composed of theories that are falsifiable. Obviously there is scope for some progress using such theories without even acknowledging the cocnept of falsifiability. However, it is inevitable that progress towards the understanding of the natural world would then stall because there would be no way to weed out those parts of human knowledge that are hampering progress. History backs me up on this. The ancient greeks made far more progress in philosophy and maths than science.

To claim that engineering is not rooted in science you are an ignorant fool

Engineering uses the knowledge developed from science. That is all. Engineers can also be scientists and often use the scientific method, but engineering is not 'rooted' in science because it often operates outside of the scientific method. I recently attended a conference by an engineering professor where he tried to develop a 'definition' of engineering that is as concise and illuminating as the modern scientific method is for science.

MODERN scientific method freediver, it is just the most modern incarnation of science  ::)

This is what the implication of that little word 'bulk' is! Science existed before your chrisitan fantasy time of unquestioned superiority, it may have been different but the modern method WOULD NOT HAVE EMERGED without relying and building upon older methods.

Its is irrelevant because evolution holds up to the modern method anyway...

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 1:45pm:

Also, the bulk thing doesn't contradict my view because "scientific knowledge" does not have to be developed by someone following the scientific method in an active sense.

BINGO.... he's catching on!

Now if you will just acknowledge that any number of null hypotheses apply to evolution, we might be getting somewhere.

may have been different but the modern method WOULD NOT HAVE EMERGED without relying and building upon older methods

Wrong, it would not have emerged without discarding a lot of the old methods. And even if it did build upon some of the old methods, that still doesn't change the argument. Science has changed. Science teachers do not sit their students under a tree, pass round the bottle of wine and argue philosophy.

What are you sh!t at maths or something? How can you be so disrespectful to the ancient greek achievements?

Note that I said more than once now that my point regarding the history of science is irrelevant since evolution holds up to the modern method... So you agree again?

How can you be so disrespectful to the ancient greek achievements?

I am not. They achieved quite a lot, given that they didn't have the modern scientific method to guide them.

Wow freediver you really are catching on here?? Now do you want to go and edit your article to better reflect your views, you know, try to hint at some sort of impartiality?

So... Jo-Ho or not? Do you knock on the doors?

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 2:09pm:

may have been different but the modern method WOULD NOT HAVE EMERGED without relying and building upon older methods Wrong, it would not have emerged without discarding a lot of the old methods. And even if it did build upon some of the old methods, that still doesn't change the argument. Science has changed. Science teachers do not sit their students under a tree, pass round the bottle of wine and argue philosophy.

Of course methods had to be discarded, this is the way in which science evolves! Einstein trumped Newton, this does not make Newton non scientific ::)

To imply that little to nothing was kept from the ancient greeks demonstrates how one-eyed you view this topic... I mean mathematic method man! for fcuks sake dude just take a close look at how the greeks came to their conclusions, and how those scientific conclusions hold true TO THIS VERY DAY. Are you going to tell me that the investigation of the relationship between the area and side of a square (for example) was not scientific in kind? That the investigation into the relationship between a triangles angles to the length of its sides was not scientific in kind? You really cannot seriously tell me that maths did not begin with scientific investigation?

Einstein trumped Newton, this does not make Newton non scientific

I haven't claimed that he did. I am not talking about theories, I am talking about methods.

I mean mathematic method man! for fcuks sake dude just take a close look at how the greeks came to their conclusions, and how those scientific conclusions hold true TO THIS VERY DAY

No they don't. The ancient greeks had a laughably rudimentary understanding of the natural world. Which is of course understandable given that they couldn't be bothered doing experiments.

Are you going to tell me that the investigation of the relationship between the area and side of a square (for example) was not scientific in kind?

A square is a human construct. It's maths, not science.

Quote:

No they don't. The ancient greeks had a laughably rudimentary understanding of the natural world. Which is of course understandable given that they couldn't be bothered doing experiments.

I see, so trigonometry, just not relevant is it? Not a rigorous scientific look into the relationship between intersections of straight lines?? No, nothing scientific about trigonometry, or archimedes screw, or telescopes, or early attempts to map the solar system, nope, no science here folks!


Quote:

A square is a human construct. It's maths, not science.

All scientific models are human constructs, if you understood science you would know this.

Carefully avoid the triangle example now didn't you? There is nothing more fundamental to the universe than the triangle and the circle/spere, you know this, don't you freediver?

I see, so trigonometry, just not relevant is it?.

No, not science. That is all.

All scientific models are human constructs

....intended to describe the natural world. Squares aren't.

Maths has proofs, science doesn't.

^^ Religious crank at 12 o'clock. move along folks, nothing to see here ^^

So freediver, were the methods of science NOT used to derive the trig ratios?

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:05pm:

All scientific models are human constructs ....intended to describe the natural world. Squares aren't.

What exactly is not natural about geometry??

ALL GEOMETRY ATTEMPTS TO DESCRIBE THE NATURAL WORLD


Quote:

Maths has proofs, science doesn't.

Ahh so you agree with me again? There is no clear cut way to define what makes a theory scientific... if it has method and predictive value of any kind, it is scientific, all that remains is for the community to seperate the wheat from thge chaff, which they have done. You are chaff freediver, remember that.

How many squares do you see in nature?

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:12pm:

How many squares do you see in nature?

;D plenty, geometry is everywhere... Cubic unit cells?

Cells are not squares. For starters, they have volume.

I can see where you are going with this, or rather where it is coming from - that maths and science are the same thing. They are not. Maths has proofs. Science doesn't. Everyone understands the difference between maths and science and would have little trouble deciding which class trigonometry or relativity belong in.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:12pm:

How many squares do you see in nature?

By this statement you also imply that human endeavour is not a natural process, a fundamental misunderstanding of what natural means. A typically christian view to adopt might I add ;)

Man builds a square house, man sees a square in nature, a mans works are as much a part of nature as the man himself, of course that is unless you think man is somehow separate from nature?

More cubes, since you will no doubt make some stupid point about how ancient greeks could not see crystal unit cells... go take a look at a salt grain, or any other cubic based crystal. And you are still avoiding the trig example, again, nothing natural about the angle between straight lines is there freediver? Nothing natural at all.

Also, maths is the study of human constructs. To the extent that scientific theories are human constructs, science tests how well nature conforms to them.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:26pm:

Cells are not squares. For starters, they have volume.

Oh dear... you are losing this one bad aren't you? You really are not very good at maths are you freediver? A cube is 6 square planes...be it cube or square makes no difference to the scientific methods employed in the analysis of the form. Again you are dodging the trig!


Quote:

I can see where you are going with this, or rather where it is coming from - that maths and science are the same thing. They are not. Maths has proofs. Science doesn't. Everyone understands the difference between maths and science and would have little trouble deciding which class trigonometry or relativity belong in.

No sh!t, but it is a chicken and egg situation, maths for the sake of maths is indeed maths, however ALL maths arose out of scientific study, you know this, deep down, I know you know this, you are just trying to keep the argument alive.

however ALL maths arose out of scientific study

No it didn't. THis statement only makes sense if you broaden the definition of science to include all human knowledge.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:30pm:

Also, maths is the study of human constructs. To the extent that scientific theories are human constructs, science tests how well nature conforms to them.

MATHS is a study of NATURAL, GEOMETRIC CONSTRUCTS. Yes, human models are used in maths as they are in science, no this does not mean they are not natural constructs either.

Do you think man just dreamed up geometry without first observing it in nature?? How old are you?? What planet are you from??

MAN AND NATURE ARE NOT SEPARATE YOU TWIT

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:31pm:

however ALL maths arose out of scientific study No it didn't. THis statement only makes sense if you broaden the definition of science to include all human knowledge.

OH MY GOD HE"S CATCHING ON!

Yes, most foolish fool of all fools, science is EXACTLY that, it is: "all human knowledge" that arose through observation and analysis.

MATHS is a study of NATURAL, GEOMETRIC CONSTRUCTS.

No it isn't. How often do mathematicians go out and study natural constructs? Squares are defined from 'first principles' without any reference to nature.

Yes, human models are used in maths as they are in science

Science always recourses to nature, maths never does.

Do you think man just dreamed up geometry without first observing it in nature?

There are no squares in nature. You may observe something that is similar, but a square is by definition something that cannot exist in nature.

Maths may have been inspired by nature or something else. But it is not the study of nature. Mathematicians took whatever it is that inspired them and rebuilt it from entirely human constructs.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:26pm:

Cells are not squares. For starters, they have volume. I can see where you are going with this, or rather where it is coming from - that maths and science are the same thing. They are not. Maths has proofs. Science doesn't. Everyone understands the difference between maths and science and would have little trouble deciding which class trigonometry or relativity belong in.

Mathematical proofs are only valid within the laws set up by man to define what maths is. The problem is you don't get the fact that the rules that define maths were decided upon through observation and analysis of nature: SCIENTIFIC STUDY.

Cart and horse freediver, you have your around the wrong way.

Yes, most foolish fool of all fools, science is EXACTLY that, it is: "all human knowledge" that arose through observation and analysis.

Science is not all human knowledge. The latin root was once used with that meaning, but science means something completely different.

Mathematical proofs are only valid within the laws set up by man to define what maths is.

You cannot say the same about science can you?

The problem is you don't get the fact that the rules that define maths were decided upon through observation and analysis of nature: SCIENTIFIC STUDY.

No they weren't. I doubt you even know what those rules are.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:39pm:

MATHS is a study of NATURAL, GEOMETRIC CONSTRUCTS. No it isn't. How often do mathematicians go out and study natural constructs? Squares are defined from 'first principles' without any reference to nature.

These days they do not, in its inception, maths was entirely dependent on scientific method.


Quote:

Yes, human models are used in maths as they are in science Science always recourses to nature, maths never does.

Really? Then why is maths "the language of science" ??


Quote:

Do you think man just dreamed up geometry without first observing it in nature? There are no squares in nature. You may observe something that is similar, but a square is by definition something that cannot exist in nature.

Fine dipsh!t, a cube, same thing: geometry, angles length and so on. And my point stands, cubes, prisms etc are observed everywhere in nature, if you haven't noticed I'd suggest opening your eyes.


Quote:

Maths may have been inspired by nature or something else. But it is not the study of nature. Mathematicians took whatever it is that inspired them and rebuilt it from entirely human constructs.

So not only do you not understand science, you fail to grasp what maths is as well...

What is it all just smacking "god did it" ???

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:42pm:

Mathematical proofs are only valid within the laws set up by man to define what maths is. You cannot say the same about science can you?

Fcucken oath I can. Since science is only human models of what is observed, science can never actually predict with perfection what happens in nature, and as such scientific models are only true within the framework in which they are set by their human creators.


Quote:

The problem is you don't get the fact that the rules that define maths were decided upon through observation and analysis of nature: SCIENTIFIC STUDY. No they weren't.

Oh and I suppose god just told man how to do it? Enlighten me then as to how people arrived at these conclusions?


Quote:

I doubt you even know what those rules are.

Oh you wanna go? smacking dipsh!t, tell me I don't understand my maths I'll rearrange and integrate by parts your ass from here to Perth and back again ;)

But seriously freediver, this is a profoundly stupid remark for you to have said.

These days they do not, in its inception, maths was entirely dependent on scientific method.

Even if this were true, that would not make them the same thing.

Really? Then why is maths "the language of science"?

It isn't.

And my point stands, cubes, prisms etc are observed everywhere in nature, if you haven't noticed I'd suggest opening your eyes.

Sure, but those cubes are not the same thing that mathematicians use. They only approximate them.

So not only do you not understand science, you fail to grasp what maths is as well...

You were the one who used 'the rules that define maths' to back up your argument, even though you don't even know what those rules are.

Since science is only human models of what is observed, science can never actually predict with perfection what happens in nature

That does not mean that they are only valid within the laws set up by man

and as such scientific models are only true within the framework in which they are set by their human creators

Scientific models are never regarded to be true. Maths is always true by definition.

Oh you wanna go? smacking dipsh!t, tell me I don't understand my maths I'll rearrange and integrate by parts your ass from here to Perth and back a

OK then, what are these rules you mentioned?

Freediver, why don't you just drop it, I fail to even see what it is you are trying to do anymore other than disagree with every logical and well understood point I make. Argument for arguments sake... keep those waters muddy as all bugger.

No geometry in nature... yeah mate, good call

Maths did not arise out of observation of nature... hmm yeah mate, real smart comment.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:49pm:

These days they do not, in its inception, maths was entirely dependent on scientific method. Even if this were true, that would not make them the same thing.

Maths arose out of scientific study, this is my whole point.


Quote:

Really? Then why is maths "the language of science"? It isn't.

Are you really sure you are going to go on record here and say that? I mean mate, come on, you carry on about how much you understand science and then you come out with this beauty? This is one of the most well known and fundamental tenets of the modern concept of science... maths and science may not be exactly the same but they are inseperable concepts.


Quote:

And my point stands, cubes, prisms etc are observed everywhere in nature, if you haven't noticed I'd suggest opening your eyes. Sure, but those cubes are not the same thing that mathematicians use. They only approximate them.

EXACTLY MY POINT

*takes a bow*


Quote:

So not only do you not understand science, you fail to grasp what maths is as well... You were the one who used 'the rules that define maths' to back up your argument, even though you don't even know what those rules are.

Where have I demonstrated a failure to understand the laws of maths?

Zoso - freediver has beaten you. You allowed him to get you on the maths/science/geometry tack and you have lost. You shouldn't have got involved. Maths is analytic - has no relation to the real world. Some maths can be applied to the world but that is synthetic. Even Euclids geometry doesn't apply to the real world but it can be used as an approximation.
All this this beside the point. The is a Jehovahs Witness site and freediver is happy as puch that you are debate with him.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:51pm:

Since science is only human models of what is observed, science can never actually predict with perfection what happens in nature That does not mean that they are only valid within the laws set up by man

Newtons, meters, Joules, density, mass, Watts... and son on...are these not human constructs? What predictions does science make outside its own little human definition? Which by the way is a natural thing...


Quote:

and as such scientific models are only true within the framework in which they are set by their human creators Scientific models are never regarded to be true. Maths is always true by definition.

I guess you haven't studied much statistics then, or looked at how limits are defined...


Quote:

Oh you wanna go? smacking dipsh!t, tell me I don't understand my maths I'll rearrange and integrate by parts your ass from here to Perth and back a OK then, what are these rules you mentioned?

Oh come on... show me where I have demonstrated a misunderstanding of the rules of maths and I will feel I have reason to write what would amount to a many thousand word essay on the laws of maths.

I am a smacking mechanical engineering student, I'll just let that speak for itself.

Thank you sense. Zoso please take the maths stuff to the other thread. I think it deserves a thread of it's own.

wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:56pm:

Zoso - freediver has beaten you. You allowed him to get you on the maths/science/geometry tack and you have lost. You shouldn't have got involved. Maths is analytic - has no relation to the real world. Some maths can be applied to the world but that is synthetic. Even Euclids geometry doesn't apply to the real world but it can be used as an approximation. All this this beside the point. The is a Jehovahs Witness site and freediver is happy as puch that you are debate with him.

Bah, I do not disagree with this :)

Truth is, science is analytic too, and has the same relation to the real world that maths does, because maths is the language used in almost all science.

Freediver is beaten I say, he fails to understand how maths and science arose and what they truly are :)

True though it is besides the point, but all this debate won't change the fact that if a smacking Jo-Ho comes near my house he will be greeted by a 40kg german shepherd, an angry one, with social issues, who hates christians ;D

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:59pm:

Thank you sense. Zoso please take the maths stuff to the other thread. I think it deserves a thread of it's own.

You are a smacking idiot and there is no point in continuing this debate in the first place, take it to the other thread yourself.

Come on zoso, no need to get personal. Perhaps you would be better off walking away from this aprticular debate and coming back when you can express yourself more concisely.

BTW, I am genuine interested in those rules that define maths, if you ever get round to finding them.

You are fishing you piece of sh!t, you know the laws of maths, either that or you are a numbskull fool (possible). I know where this will go, I will write something and it will not matter how it is written, you will find some way of twisting my words so that you can misrepresent my position into a little straw man, then attack your little straw man....as you do in every single debate you engage in.

I choose not to take the bait.

FD Popper :D