Australian Politics Forum - Kuhn vs Popper

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51888 At my desk.	Re: Kuhn vs Popper Reply #30 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:05pm 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.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

zoso Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 512	Re: Kuhn vs Popper Reply #31 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:07pm ^^ 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?
Back to top	IP Logged

zoso

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 512

Re: Kuhn vs Popper
Reply #32 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:10pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51888 At my desk.	Re: Kuhn vs Popper Reply #33 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:12pm How many squares do you see in nature?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

zoso Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 512	Re: Kuhn vs Popper Reply #34 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:19pm freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:12pm: How many squares do you see in nature? plenty, geometry is everywhere... Cubic unit cells?
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51888
At my desk.

Re: Kuhn vs Popper
Reply #35 - 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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

zoso

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 512

Re: Kuhn vs Popper
Reply #36 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:27pm

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 Wink

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51888 At my desk.	Re: Kuhn vs Popper Reply #37 - 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.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

zoso

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 512

Re: Kuhn vs Popper
Reply #38 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:30pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51888 At my desk.	Re: Kuhn vs Popper Reply #39 - 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.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

zoso

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 512

Re: Kuhn vs Popper
Reply #40 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:32pm

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

Back to top

IP Logged

zoso

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 512

Re: Kuhn vs Popper
Reply #41 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:34pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51888
At my desk.

Re: Kuhn vs Popper
Reply #42 - 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.

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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

zoso

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 512

Re: Kuhn vs Popper
Reply #43 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:40pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51888 At my desk.	Re: Kuhn vs Popper Reply #44 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:40pm 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.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged