Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote:

skakos wrote:
So math is not science and yet science is based on math

The branch of science that is most dependent on it is physics. But physics is not the whole of science just
a part of it. And so there are other branches such as biology and psychology for example which are not as
dependent on it. The reason why maths is not science is because it is a deductive discipline while science
is an inductive one. Math deals with what is definitely true while science deals with what is probably true

These other branches, I am not sure how "scientific" they are if we want to use the term in its stricter sense.
I am not saying that math is a science in the same way that physics is.
Surely mathematics deal with many things which are purely imaginary. (constructions)
I am just saying that mathematics are much more pure and "clean" in the sense than they are based purely on "1+1=2" proofs instead of relying in interpretation of empirical data as other sciences do. And if you cannot have crystal clear foundations even for that field (maths) then you cannot have crystal clear foundations for anything.

thedoc wrote:

skakos wrote:OK.

So we see things created by... creators.

Does this mean it is utterly LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC to search for a creator for the cosmos as well?

Certainly science can search for a creator of the Cosmos, and if there is some physical cause, science might be able to find it. However if the cause is spiritual, such as God, science will not find it unless God chooses to be found.

Indeed this is the case.
There are more things than matter in the cosmos.
And we seem to forget it all the time.

skakos wrote:

thedoc wrote:

skakos wrote:OK.

So we see things created by... creators.

Does this mean it is utterly LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC to search for a creator for the cosmos as well?

Certainly science can search for a creator of the Cosmos, and if there is some physical cause, science might be able to find it. However if the cause is spiritual, such as God, science will not find it unless God chooses to be found.

Indeed this is the case.
There are more things than matter in the cosmos.
And we seem to forget it all the time.

And why is it that physicists seem to be the most forgetful of all, the common idea, (at least to my understanding) is that everything can be reduced to a physical cause. Is there to be nothing left that is unexplainable? Not that we should stop looking, but perhaps sometimes we are trying too hard and explaining the unexplainable.

I am not sure what you mean with that.

Anyway, the definition of "matter" is a great issue. We regard everything we "see" as matter but what is matter exactly? If we define everything as "material" then surely... everything is matter! But that is a tautology.

Physics is again defined as the sector of science dealing with physical/ natural phenomena (i.e. not supernatutal). But again, what is "natural"? Why should God or the cause of the universe be "unnatural" by definition?

For me the point is that physics uses specific methodologies (experiment, replication, deduction etc) to reach to conclusions. And its' limitarions stem from that fact. NOT from the things we arbitrarily define that are in scope of physics.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

skakos wrote:

thedoc wrote:
The theory of multiple parallel universes is speculative fiction but as it cannot be tested, it is not science.

Evolution is science because there are theories and hypothesis that can be tested by gathering evidence in the fossil record, and by observing living organisms. The most evolved is the one who survives is true because survival is based on fitting the organism into the existing environment, and evolution only fits the organism into the environment. Human judgement or opinion is irrelevant.

Math is a useful tool of science, but math is not itself science, so infinity is not science, it is a mathematical principle.

So math is not science and yet science is based on math.
And evolution is science because we can test the past through it. And it does not matter whether it is autoanaphorical or not. Human judgement is irrelevant in this case. Interesting...
As for the parallel universes theories, they may be mentioned by great astronomers or physicists and yet we do not have an opinion of whether it is science or not. Interesting too...

Science is based on evidence. Maths is a tool to describe that evidence.
Evolution is not science. Evolution is a field of study within science. "Evolution" of which there are several theories, is not anaphoric.
Parallel universes are not science. They are a mathematical speculation.

Your definition of science is... complicated. And even though I understand that it suits your purpose of segmentation of the field in order to better argue, it seems that it is arbitrary in many ways. For example the notion of parallel universes is a notion well incorporated in many scientific theories in physics, quantum mechanics included. (and do not forget that science progresses with speculations and hypotheses) Evolution is again a notion well incorporated in biology today. And biology is science.

For me science is the systematic thinking in a specific subject. Systematic thinking based on evidence and logic with the purpose of modeling what we see and make predictions that will help our lives.

In this definition all of the above are science. And maths are a tool to help science perform this modeling of reality (the subjective reality each of us interprets anyway).

skakos wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

skakos wrote:
So math is not science and yet science is based on math.
And evolution is science because we can test the past through it. And it does not matter whether it is autoanaphorical or not. Human judgement is irrelevant in this case. Interesting...
As for the parallel universes theories, they may be mentioned by great astronomers or physicists and yet we do not have an opinion of whether it is science or not. Interesting too...

Science is based on evidence. Maths is a tool to describe that evidence.
Evolution is not science. Evolution is a field of study within science. "Evolution" of which there are several theories, is not anaphoric.
Parallel universes are not science. They are a mathematical speculation.

Your definition of science is... complicated. And even though I understand that it suits your purpose of segmentation of the field in order to better argue, it seems that it is arbitrary in many ways. For example the notion of parallel universes is a notion well incorporated in many scientific theories in physics, quantum mechanics included. (and do not forget that science progresses with speculations and hypotheses) Evolution is again a notion well incorporated in biology today. And biology is science.

For me science is the systematic thinking in a specific subject. Systematic thinking based on evidence and logic with the purpose of modeling what we see and make predictions that will help our lives.

In this definition all of the above are science. And maths are a tool to help science perform this modeling of reality (the subjective reality each of us interprets anyway).

I have not presented a definition of science; I have described a feature of it; in particular the relationship it has to maths.
By stating "evolution is not science" I was not saying that evolution was not part of it. Evolution is not science, it is a concept used by science. SO I was simply correcting language.
I stand by what I said concerning "anaphoric", which you did not pick up.

I meant "Theory of Evolution" and referred to it as a scientific theory when I said that it is "science".
Correction accepted.
But again, I forgot from where we started arguing since I cannot find something to argue about now...