Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: scientific method(s), was PSEDO-SCIENCE



At 8:39 PM -0500 2/27/00, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:


The main point of Glenn's last message was that science deals
with the "true nature" while mathematics deals with the "man-
made" world. "Observations", "deductive testing" and "etc."
imply many ways of discovering things. I see no discrepancy
between what he wrote and what John is saying below.

My question is --> why "dealing with man-made logical
structures" should be a disqualification". Mathematics can
be called science if the definition of science is based on
methodology rather than on what is being investigated.
Science is broader than natural science.

I can think of many 'methodical' (= methodological?) things that I
would prefer not to call science. Water torture for one.

In my book, science requires testing with real world results. But I
have trouble with the 'true nature' (as opposed to false nature?)
also. The one True Nature sounds a bit overly theological to me.

Math has been called the 'Queen of the Sciences' but I see it more as
a tool. Mathematical theories strive for internal consistency and
completeness with absolutely NO regard for the experimental
verification that science requires.

-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-
\ / \ / \ N / \ C / \ S / \ S / \ M / \ / \ /
`-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-'
Chuck Britton Education is what is left when
britton@academic.ncssm.edu you have forgotten everything
North Carolina School of Science & Math you learned in school.
(919) 286-3366 x224 Albert Einstein, 1936