Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

25599Re: Examples of Major Disjoints between PopperDeutsch and Science

Expand Messages
  • Gary Oberbrunner
    Sep 2 11:10 AM
      On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Brett Hall <brhalluk@...> wrote:

      > > Evolution is all about math. Number of offspring, mutation rates, survival
      > > rates, etc. Without math it would be empty theorizing.
      >
      > Empty? I do not understand this. Why does mathematics give it non-zero
      > content. Evolution by
      > natural selection can be appreciated - and deeply - without any need to
      > model it using partial differential
      > equations or whatever else one might choose to use. The mechanism of
      > mutation and selection for
      > and against, given certain environments, are augmented by an understanding
      > of mathematics. But they are
      > not essential for it.


      By empty I mean that math is how we test it. Everything from Mendel
      through modern A-life experiments (software, but still mathematical). It
      can be _appreciated_ in words, sure, but to my mind the proof is in the
      math. I take your point, though; really both are vital. The math without
      the text would be just as empty.


      > > You might be
      > > confusing how it was discovered with how it's used. I think this one's on
      > > hibbsa's side. (I used to do some a-life stuff, so I know something about
      > > it.) Plate tectonics is a meta-theory of physics (it's geography), but
      > > without rates of motion, measurement and geometry (this bulge fits into
      > > that hole) it would not have happened. Nutrition, maybe. I'm less
      > > experienced in that so you could be right.
      > >
      > Geography is not a science?
      >

      I guess I'm being controversial, but I see most geography as
      categorization, like history. Such-and-such battle occurred on
      such-and-such date. So-and-so begat him and her. This river is the
      longest, that mountain is highest, this coastline is longest, and so on.
      These are matters of fact on the ground, but there's no theory behind
      them. So in my mind, they're not really sciences. Now when you start
      moving from geography to geology, and talk about rock formation, lava
      flows, and so on, then (again in my probably controversial ontology) you're
      moving toward science. But again you're right that plate tectonics is more
      properly geology than "just" geography.

      --
      Gary


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic