Australian Politics Forum - Kuhn vs Popper

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52111
At my desk.

Re: Kuhn vs Popper
Reply #45 - 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?

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.

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 #46 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:44pm

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" ???

Back to top

IP Logged

zoso

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 512

Re: Kuhn vs Popper
Reply #47 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:48pm

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 Wink

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

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52111
At my desk.

Re: Kuhn vs Popper
Reply #48 - 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.

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.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52111
At my desk.

Re: Kuhn vs Popper
Reply #49 - 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

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?

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 #50 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:51pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

zoso

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 512

Re: Kuhn vs Popper
Reply #51 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:55pm

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

sense(Guest)

Guest

Re: Kuhn vs Popper
Reply #52 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

zoso

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 512

Re: Kuhn vs Popper
Reply #53 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:59pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 52111 At my desk.	Re: Kuhn vs Popper Reply #54 - 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.
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 #55 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 4:01pm

Quote:

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 Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

zoso Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 512	Re: Kuhn vs Popper Reply #56 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 4:02pm 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 52111 At my desk.	Re: Kuhn vs Popper Reply #57 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 4:04pm 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.
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 #58 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 4:16pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 55130 Gender:	Re: Kuhn vs Popper Reply #59 - Feb 18^th, 2024 at 10:09pm FD Popper
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged