Is Mathematics Alone a safe medium for exploring the frontiers of Science. Or should Observation and Hypothesis lead in front ?

[swansont]

 

Maths really needs to back off a little on occasions . If as has been described 'Science makes predictions', science needs maths to make predictions, 'No predictions , no science'. 'science is maths ' This is a serious mistake I believe !

 

Probability in maths is poor-ish at making predictions, by dint of the very nature of things in nature that rely on things that are more statistical and probability based.

 

Physics, the nature of the world is part statistical, part probability based, part predictable, fundamentally reliable precise able to be formalised into a mathematical formula Maths is poor at making predictions used in the probability type of environment. Why can it not be happy staying over in its corner , doing its calculating, playing with its formulas making beautiful, accurate predictions on things that can be accurately predicted , and stop giving people a hard time when they are trying to explore the frontiers of science with observation and hypothesis ?

 

 

A shorter version of this is "why do you keep correcting these statements just because they are wrong?"

 

The statements don't become correct after repetition.

[ajb]

I also don't really understand where this is coming from. Different branches of science require different levels of mathematical sophistication on the part of the scientists, but mathematics simply is vital in science.

So my question to Mike must be; where are you getting this?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You cannot view thinking as a tool in that way. Mathematics can help you think and formulate your ideas about just about anything in a concise way. Mathematicians also think about mathematics quite a lot!

 

 

 

 

Of course, it is possible to use the wrong tools, in this case the wrong mathematics or the wrong interpretation of the results of mathematics.

 

But remember, experimental scientists are totally dependent on mathematics. Otherwise they would just have long lists of data that means nothing. They have to do some mathematics on this set to really see the pattens and single out the important features. A rather mathematically illiterate biologist told me this!

 

OK. I accept your points, and reasoning.

 

But stow it all away in a Computer, a Program or two, or 1000 programs. Let maths do its work for us ( in the computer) , out of sight,

Let us, with our BRAIN . Our thinking is in Language [Lingual ] , So let the Language and Thinking of US be Lingual not Mathematical .

We Also think in Pictures so let the language of science be pictorial as well. True our hands have 10 fingers so I suppose we think a little in number , but for most of us this thinking is fairly limited in scope.

 

No. Stow all your maths into computers, leave us a LANGUAGE we can relate to A - Pictorial - Lingual interface - and Science and Scientists can play to their hearts content coming up with new ideas, simulating them , testing them for Correlation, accuracy, patterns, results, graphs, pictorial expression, reliant on the fact that you guys have done your sums correctly , or at least you have helped the programmers get the program right.

 

Perhaps this is semantics , but keep the language of science in the forum of the common human mind.

 

You guys go off into your surreal language of maths in the depths of the computer. We will love you for all your beautiful pictures and simulations and precision figures. But please dont take over science and lead us in research. Look where you have taken us in string theory, we are in [ guzzillion dimensions and universes which we are not even sure they exist , or even the strings exist , maybe they do, may be they dont,] but people are dying around here.

[ajb]

No, you have much too a narrow-minded view of how science progresses.

So we don't use statistical analysis of experimental data in science?

Perhaps this is semantics , but keep the language of science in the forum of the common human mind.

It looks like semantics to me.

 

You maybe confusing the use of mathematics with exactly how we do the mathematics and also the interpretation of the mathematical results in our models. This is also tied in with how we present information; your graphs and diagrams.

 

The bottom line is maths and science are deeply tied together, but not always comfortably.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I also don't really understand where this is coming from. Different branches of science require different levels of mathematical sophistication on the part of the scientists, but mathematics simply is vital in science.

 

So my question to Mike must be; where are you getting this?

 

Not too sure what you are asking me ? where are you getting this? If you mean , the statements I have been making. , i accept a lot of what you say ajb , as i accept say above " Different branches of science require different levels of mathematical sophistication on the part of the scientists, but mathematics simply is vital in science." I accept .

 

But if I go to the Doctor and he says " you have hypo glycomic, blood synthetic aptitude your systemic and didactic pressure is hypertension ,due to cardio vascular ...." and I say I have not a clue what you are talking about !. Then he says Ok well you Have Blood pressure and you need to eat less and take these pills. He does not say" go away and read up on seven years of human physiology , in fact if you dont you dont know the language. tough ! "

 

So one can accept that all these mathematical terms , formulas, proceedures are the language of maths that mathematicians discovered and have written up over the last 2000-3000 years.But they are the language of Maths NOT the language of science.[ or at least should not be or we are heading for trouble] mathematicians unless asked otherwise should use the language of all scientists namely " you Have Blood pressure and you need to eat less and take these pills. ( your Blood pressure is 140 over 90 , take 1 16mg Candesatan pill daily ) get it from the chemist shop. "

 

Perhaps it is this " Maths is the Language of Science" dont do the Maths NOT a scientist " is the scary bit. surely the maths chaps can do there bit well. Other Disciplines do there bit well. We can all be Scientists as the overarching profession.

 

mike

[studiot]

This discussion seems to be going round in circles.

 

Can I suggest that the difference between analysis and synthesis be given an airing?

 

It is very easy to measure and describe something existing and observable by means of mathematics.

 

It is not so easy to create something to order and mathematics is often silent on the way to achieve this, although it may help confirm when you arrive.

 

Not all science and technology is amenable to the language of mathematics.

 

Take, for example, the flat plates I mentioned earlier. Mathematical analysis of measurements can tell you when the plates are flat, but it has nothing to offer on ways to achieve flatness.

[ajb]

But if I go to the Doctor and he says " you have hypo glycomic, blood synthetic aptitude your systemic and didactic pressure is hypertension ,due to cardio vascular ...." and I say I have not a clue what you are talking about !. Then he says Ok well you Have Blood pressure and you need to eat less and take these pills. He does not say" go away and read up on seven years of human physiology , in fact if you dont you dont know the language. tough ! "

We are now getting somewhere.

 

You example is not a criticism of medicine nor how doctors work, but is a criticism of the communication of medical science to a patient.

 

This applies to the use of mathematics in science, at various levels, and the communication of these ideas/results to the layperson.

 

So one can accept that all these mathematical terms , formulas, proceedures are the language of maths that mathematicians discovered and have written up over the last 2000-3000 years.But they are the language of Maths NOT the language of science.

It depends on the sophistication here, but scientists talk to each other in terms of mathematics when it is appropriate. For example, "I measured the speed to be 3 ms^{-1} to within an accuracy of 5%". To get this I measured the speed lots of times and averaged this (lets say). Here only basic mathematics but you get the idea.

 

But then I want to tell you about this speed. Maybe 3 ms^{-1} has little meaning for you, let alone the accuracy. So I would say the speed is about that of the average jogger. Now you get a feel for it.

 

 

(your Blood pressure is 140 over 90 , take 1 16mg Candesatan pill daily ) get it from the chemist shop.

The maths here is the 140 over 90. It may not mean much to you, all you need to know is if it is high or not. Again, this is the communication of medical science and not an issue with medical science. See above example.

 

Perhaps it is this " Maths is the Language of Science" dont do the Maths NOT a scientist " is the scary bit.

This is again very dependent on the exact topic in question and the style of the scientists. Some subjects require lots of modern mathematics, others just basic stats, which you can get a computer to do the donkey work here. Though every scientist should have some grasp of the tools he is actually using, but that maybe another story.

 

 

Again, where appropriate scientists will talk in terms of mathematics to each other.

 

surely the maths chaps can do there bit well.

In what way?

 

Some mathematicians work with scientists and engineers regularly. And of course science and engineering can be a good source of problems for mathematicians to work on even if they are not really interested in the applications.

[Delta1212]

The doctor doesn't say "Don't know the language: tough" and expect patients to take years of courses to understand what was said. However, a person who says they are a doctor, too, and has no idea what that means because they haven't taken years of courses would be suspect.

 

At best such a person is interested in medicine or anatomy, but you wouldn't put them in charge of a large medical trial because they don't have the proper training to conduct it, they lack the knowledge to interpret the results in a meaningful fashion and they don't have the technical vocabulary to communicate the results.

 

If I tell a doctor that I've discovered a cute for cancer because when I cut open my patient's tummy and removed the yellow round thing on the left they got better, that doctor is going to have no idea what I'm talking about.

 

It leaves open too many questions to be useful: Where did I cut exactly? What did I remove? The tumor? Some gland or organ? What does 'got better' mean? Did the tumor shrink? Disappear? Did it just relieve the symptoms? How long did the patient remain cancer-free assuming that's even what happened? Were there any side effects? How risky was the surgery? How can we be sure the surgery actually did anything and the patient 'getting better' wasn't caused by something else or a temporary result of the placebo effect?

 

There are similar issues with amateur science, although it is slightly easier to practice than amateur medicine since you won't get arrested. Scientists predict, record and communicate results in a specific way because there are a lot of questions that need to be answered in order to judge the quality of the information and to allow others to formulate ways to further test that information.

 

I have a keen interest in science, an above average grasp of mathematics and the ability to conduct experiments if I so choose. I do not consider myself a scientist, although if I decided to work at it I suppose I could be considered an amateur scientist. That said, I have absolutely no expectation that I will ever publish anything, and certainly not anything on the cutting edge of theoretical physics. My knowledge of the field and of the process is not where it would need to be for that to be realistic.

 

That said, let's say I make some grand discovery that will revolutionize science somehow. My very first step is going to be to find someone working in the field who is willing to help me either by directly reformulating the experiment and the necessary math so that it will be scientifically meaningful, and then with preparing the paper to publish, or at least by pointing me in the direction of resources that will let me learn how to do it myself.

 

It's good to try to communicate with the public on a level that is generally understandable, but if you try to communicate that way within the field, you wind up spewing useless gobbledygook.

[swansont]

But if I go to the Doctor and he says " you have hypo glycomic, blood synthetic aptitude your systemic and didactic pressure is hypertension ,due to cardio vascular ...." and I say I have not a clue what you are talking about !

Which is completely beside the point of whether the people that did the research into these conditions used math or not. This is about communication with a non-expert, as ajb has pointed out.

 

I don't see how one can hope to have any constructive criticism into how research is conducted if they have never conducted research. All I've seen is some mental image of how you think it happens, and a number of people who actually do research have told you your model is wrong. The real issue at this point is why you haven't changed your view when confronted with facts.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I don't see how ............. have never . .....All I've seen is , ..........and is wrong. why you haven't changed ......... confronted

 

All these comments of yours are NEGATIVE Why are you being so NEGATIVE

 

I have been trying to make a POSITIVE contribution towards a possible POSITIVE direction which science research could take .

irrelevant as to how research has been conducted in the past , it would seem to me a POSITIVE contribution to our mutual subject interest SCIENCE.

 

A) Such that ALL scientists in the subject area or out of the subject area may have a language which is acceptable to all scientists Including necessary Maths but not unnecessarily dominated by math.

 

B) Such that the NON science community, who after all are usually the paymasters of scientists as Taxpayers , as well as potential consumers of the science products. That they may not unnecessarily be excluded by overly mathematical language.

 

Now in addition to what I see is a good idea which you are free to dispute ( possibly showing yourself in opposition to constructive suggestions ). I would like to defend my position, as being One [me] , who most often agrees with arguing parties , as indeed I have agreed with many of the points abj has made above.

 

I do however in this case do NOT concede. In that I believe :-

 

OBSERVATION & HYPOTHESIS should lead modern scientific research

as opposed to MATHS leading in front.

 

.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

A) Such that ALL scientists in the subject area or out of the subject area may have a language which is acceptable to all scientists Including necessary Maths but not unnecessarily dominated by math.

Usally specific branches of science and mathematics have their own lingo and jargon. It can be difficult communicating with people unless they work on something very similar. That said, there is some universal lingo that just about everyone working in a related field should know. However, this will not be across all science.

 

For example, talking about energy and momentum would be fine with anyone in physics. Talking about large N-expansions of conformal field theoreis (for example) would require a more specialised audence.

 

B) Such that the NON science community, who after all are usually the paymasters of scientists as Taxpayers , as well as potential consumers of the science products. That they may not unnecessarily be excluded by overly mathematical language.

Again, this is an issue of science communication with the general public not an issue with how modern resarch is conducted.

 

I still don't really understand where your criticism comes from. This may help us answer your points.

 

Have you tried to read some papers or understand some specific issue carefully and become frustraited?

I don't see how one can hope to have any constructive criticism into how research is conducted if they have never conducted research.

We do get our fair share of that on these forums!

[Bignose]

Mike, every subject creates is own jargon. Fans of football (both footie and American) have their own terminology. Every job I've ever had had its own set of terminology and acronyms. Using the Internet and this forum has its own language. It happens all the time. Science and every branch and offshoot of science does this as well.

 

Almost surely could ways be set up to decode this be easier. But the terminology is not going away. So outsiders do need to put in a little work to understand, be they outside an Internet community, an outsider to fans of football, or outside the science community.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Bignose

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike, every subject creates is own jargon. Fans of football (both footie and American) have their own terminology. Every job I've ever had had its own set of terminology and acronyms. Using the Internet and this forum has its own language. It happens all the time. Science and every branch and offshoot of science does this as well.

 

Almost surely could ways be set up to decode this be easier. But the terminology is not going away. So outsiders do need to put in a little work to understand, be they outside an Internet community, an outsider to fans of football, or outside the science community.

 

swansont, on 30 Aug 2013 - 3:32 PM, said: I don't see how one can hope to have any constructive criticism into how research is conducted if they have never conducted research.

 

AJB SAID Usally specific branches of science and mathematics have their own lingo and jargon

AJB SAID I still don't really understand where your criticism comes from. This may help us answer your points.

 

AJB said Have you tried to read some papers or understand some specific issue carefully and become frustraited?

 

Well, I am very inclined to agree. The various Engineering/ scientific assignments I have been involved with, throughout my life have always required me going away in a Library for weeks often and getting up to speed with the specific detail or even dare i say it relevant maths..I was thrown in to missile work back in the cold war. Major Computer Networks,in the areas of connectivity. Banking and Magnetics to name a few. Each was totally different in its technical requirement and required its own in depth research. Each its own specific language There was no common Language only ' Engineering speak.'

 

I have given myself an horrific challenge in my retirement. .To read across the whole shebang, to try and make some sense of it all. No way can i learn the specific maths or more to the point the surrounding specialisms to each area. I am sure I would be capable of picking just one specific detailed subject and getting a complete understanding including the maths as thats what I did on the few major projects I got involved with up through my life. Unfortunately I would run out of time to do all that. Anyway thats not what I want to do. I am trying to get an Engineering/scientific OVERVIEW of the whole shaboodle.

 

I am not sure why I am doing this. Maybe I should just sit on a beach. Trouble is ,when I do that I start thinking. I always have a note book with me. I have about 20 notebooks. A few things have come out of this process, That's probably why I am a bit persistent on a few areas, including this thread.

 

mike

Edited August 30, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Humblemunn - I have already posted three warning moderations telling you not to hijack threads through promoting your own tangential-related ideas (including one is this very thread). As warned and seeing that no one had replied to your hijack I have taken the option of removing it from view - this will continue to happen if you hijack. You will also risk further sanction.

 

[ajb]

I am trying to get an Engineering/scientific OVERVIEW of the whole shaboodle.

That is great, but for the most part you will have to accept that the knowledge you acquire will not be in depth for all but a few specific topics.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

That is great, but for the most part you will have to accept that the knowledge you acquire will not be in depth for all but a few specific topics.

 

To some extent , that may be an advantage. To see a pattern in the whole thing.

 

I have equally taken up painting in my retirement , under various casual Art tutors. They have been pestering me over and over " Its all about tone THE DARK and THE LIGHT" "Mike screw up your eyes, squint until it all fades, back up a bit, and you will see JUST the DARK and the LIGHT. Paint that First , it is the essence of your painting. "

 

To some extent , as regards the Cosmos, the Whole shebang, I am attempting particularly from a PHYSICS angle, but including the whole thing,

I am trying to FLY ACROSS the whole thing , with my eyes squinted, ( hence not necessarily in complete depth , an advantage , yet understandable in outline ) and see THE DARK and THE LIGHT to make some form of sense of the whole shaboogle. ! .

 

Maybe if I see IT , I will disappear or go up in a puff of smoke !

 

mike

[swansont]

All these comments of yours are NEGATIVE Why are you being so NEGATIVE

 

I have been trying to make a POSITIVE contribution towards a possible POSITIVE direction which science research could take .

irrelevant as to how research has been conducted in the past , it would seem to me a POSITIVE contribution to our mutual subject interest SCIENCE.

All the people I know who make positive contributions to science process criticism and adjust their thinking/arguments based on that. When it is shown that they are wrong about something, they stop using that argument. That's part of the process of science: comparing your idea to reality, and eliminating what disagrees from your model.

 

If you want to make a positive contribution to science, you need to actually be doing science.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

If you want to make a positive contribution to science, you need to actually be doing science.

 

But that is what I am doing. ! Science With the tools.

 

I am looking around very carefully, eyes

Making Observations.

Thinking about what I have observed. Brain

Seeing if there are any patterns ,in what I am observing.

Recording my Observations and thoughts. Note Book

Reading about the subject . Books

Comparing with what is already known , with any questions that could be asked

 

THINKING { Doing a lot of Thinking } Brain

 

Coming up with a possible hypothesis as to what might explain the Observation. Note Book

If possible arranging an EXPERIMENT even if it is a Gedanken Thought experiment. Anything

Noting the results. Brain - Note book

Looking for patterns Brain

Coming to any possible Conclusions. Brain

Evaluating the project. Brain

Publicizing my findings and Conclusions. Internet

 

 

(oops No maths ) ( occasionally a little maths )

 

Then YES I am doing Science

Surely That is doing Science...or it used to be .. maybe times have changed ?

 

If you mean , Am I in a Lab, with a computer doing modelling. With all sorts of expensive equipment. Under a professor , monitoring me, Producing arXiv Published Papers . Then NO I am not doing that . . .

So if that's the only way to do science I am not doing That Brand of science

 

mike

Edited August 31, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Comparing with what is already known

You aren't doing this when you ignore people telling you what we already know.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You aren't doing this when you ignore people telling you what we already know.

You have got to be kidding me. I take very seriously all ( every contributors ) comments . I think about them . Then make a decision on whether they are acceptable to me. If they are I many times agree. In fact sometimes perhaps unnecessarily so. if I do not agree with a particular line of thought , I do not agree. Surely that is my right . ( even if I am wrong ) ? I don't just say " yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir " Surely NO ?

[ajb]

Then YES I am doing Science

Your description is too vague to say if you are doing science or not.

 

If you mean , Am I in a Lab, with a computer doing modelling. With all sorts of expensive equipment.

Lot of scientists are not doing that!

Edited August 31, 2013 by ajb

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Your description is too vague to say if you are doing science or not.

 

 

Lot of scientists are not doing that!

 

Are you chaps just trying " To wind me up "

[ajb]

Are you chaps just trying " To wind me up "

From your list we have no idea if the way you are using the tools are appropriate for the field. If it is theoretical physics you are interested in then lots of mathematics is needed. But if you are studying the habits of some ants in your garden, then you will needs less maths; careful recordings of data and some data analysis later to help you test your hypothesis.

 

However, both require some mathematics!

Edited August 31, 2013 by ajb

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

............ if you are studying the habits of some a ants in your garden, then you will needs less maths; careful recordings of data and some data analysis later to help you test your hypothesis..................

 

 

 

I have just picked myself up rolling about the floor in laughter ..........At least I can end on a happy note.

I have to go out right now . getting ready to go to Italy tomorrow for 2 weeks . out of contact, up in the mountains of Umbria . I will be counting . But its Scoroions I will be on the look out for.

 

Hope to bring back my research Doc on Partial Arc oscillation .. for Mr Swansont to Unlock my Thread on " Mass Transport System "

 

Might have words Tonight , maybe Not . Bye Mike

[ajb]

I have just picked myself up rolling about the floor in laughter ..........At least I can end on a happy note.

I'm glad you are happy!