A Question

[foodchain]

I hear in many threads in the physics section in regards to views I shall call them that its the math/calculations that makes something true. IS such an actual or viable position that professionals in such a field hold, even if something has not been tested or for that matter directly observed? It seems to me that with reality as a whole, that simply does not equate into truth, no pun intended.

[swansont]

I think you may be misinterpreting things. Math doesn't make it true, but it makes for specific, testable predictions. Without it, things are often way too vague, allowing for hand-waving to explain any observed effect and camouflage contradictions. Math makes it possible nail all that down.

[insane_alien]

yeah, its like swansont says, your makeing a test that says either 'right' or 'wrong'

 

there is a difference between a theory that says two objects will accelerate towards each other. and a theory thats predicts they will accelerate towards each other at x m·s^-2.

 

the first can be handwaved around to fit the data but the second one means it is either correct or incorrect.

[Royston]

I hear in many threads in the physics section in regards to views I shall call them that its the math/calculations that makes something true.

 

I presume when you say 'view' you mean, a new hypothesis put forward...maths isn't always necessary, evolution was qualitative , but it took a long time to come into fruition. It entirely depends what you're trying to tackle. With regards to physics, then maths backs up your argument...explanation can only go so far, especially if it's a rather poor explanation. It's generally easier to see where somebody is going wrong with maths, if they're proposing some new hypothesis.

 

IS such an actual or viable position that professionals in such a field hold, even if something has not been tested or for that matter directly observed?

 

I think you need to be a bit more specific. If a previous theory e.g relativity, has been tested rigourously, then any new theory would have to assume 'parts' (for want of a better word) of relativity are correct.

However, science being science, something new may come along, that may contradict or add to a 'part' and it will become subject to change, and the old theory will be modified. Physics isn't based on maths that have been plucked from nowhere, it's based on previous observations, tests et.c

 

It seems to me that with reality as a whole, that simply does not equate into truth, no pun intended.

 

Define truth.

[foodchain]

Well on the truth bit, I don’t think crime is solved simply by people just making equations, and I would guess that’s my aim in general with the question.

[insane_alien]

nocrime wouldn't be solved by it but the equations that exist already can be used to solve the crime.

[swansont]

People measure skid marks and then solve equations to show how fast you must have been going (though I suspect this is dying out due to ABS). You could deduce the firing point of a gun if you have the angle and depth bullet embedded in some material. If someone illegally dumps some chemicals, one could measure concentrations at various points and then use a diffusion equation to find out where the source was. One can apply Benford's law to indicate if accounting values are real or fabricated (I'm sure there are many instances where one could apply statistical rules to see if an occurrence were random or not.)

[Sisyphus]

All sorts of crimes can be solved with complex math. I seen it on the TV.

[insane_alien]

heh, i seen it in my forensics exam. (it was an introductory class i picked as an elective, i went to approximately 30 minutes of it. got 92% in the exam though)