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

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

And what does this have to do with whether something is considered science?

Well if we were to take the two or three recent discoveries of

..Dark matter and ...Dark energy .. Dark attractor

 

All of these are known to exist Mainly by evidence of existence , rather than mathematical prediction ? :-

 

Dark matter by the Bullet nebula being shot through and gravitational lensing.

Dark energy by expansion of the universe increasing .

Dark attractor by all the surrounding large structures being pulled towards one distinct region of space.

 

All three , we could say ," we have discovered them " , by the use of today's science and apparatus , BUT we know very little about all three , at this stage .

 

Surely, it would be fair to say ,that maths with prediction , I would have thought , is not the dominant factor in their development ?

Surely , at this stage , further observation and further hypothesis as to all three Dark Entities , is , or could possibly be , the leading impetus to its scientific development.

 

Is this not so ?

 

If we locked into maths and prediction , at this stage , before exploring ALL POSSIBILITIES , as to their nature , we could possibly miss out on the bigger picture, ( whatever that might be ) .

 

Say a whole new area of physics and science we have not yet even dreamed of ?

 

Mike

Edited April 5, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

Surely, it would be fair to say ,that maths with prediction , I would have thought , is not the dominant factor in their development ?

But without some good mathematical understanding of how one would expect the Universe to behave how would one identify the need for dark matter and dark energy?

 

 

Surely , at this stage , further observation and further hypothesis as to all three Dark Entities , is , or could possibly be , the leading impetus to its scientific development.

Sure, but again, we need to match the data to models as best we can and use the discrepancy to help build new models. Without some mathematical framework it is just a 'stab in the dark'.

 

If we locked into maths and prediction , at this stage , before exploring ALL POSSIBILITIES , as to their nature , we could possibly miss out on the bigger picture, ( whatever that might be ) .

I would say that using mathematics is the only way to explore these possibilities. You are trying to make sense of some data, whatever that is, and the only way to do that is via mathematics and models. You need some idea of what you would expect to see to know you have seen something else.

 

Say a whole new area of physics and science we have not yet even dreamed of ?

And why would this not be uncovered using a blend of mathematics and observation?

[swansont]

If we locked into maths and prediction , at this stage , before exploring ALL POSSIBILITIES , as to their nature , we could possibly miss out on the bigger picture, ( whatever that might be ) .

 

If we did "lock in", perhaps. But nobody is saying that we must "lock into maths and prediction" for everything, i.e. that you can't observe some phenomenon first. Do you get that? You are arguing a straw man. You are complaining about a situation that DOES NOT EXIST. Nobody is saying me must do this. I'm an experimentalist for crying out loud! I twiddle knobs to see what happens!

 

The point everyone else is making is that math is involved in the overall process. Sometimes it leads the way, sometimes it follows the observation.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

If we did "lock in", perhaps. But nobody is saying that we must "lock into maths and prediction" for everything, i.e. that you can't observe some phenomenon first. Do you get that? You are arguing a straw man. You are complaining about a situation that DOES NOT EXIST. Nobody is saying me must do this. I'm an experimentalist for crying out loud! I twiddle knobs to see what happens!

 

The point everyone else is making is that math is involved in the overall process. Sometimes it leads the way, sometimes it follows the observation.

O.k. I understand your Straw man argument comment. That is fair enough. I just get a bit twitchy when maths is brought up so often , as the "b all and end all " of science and discovery. I do appreciate it is the fairly deep seated means of understanding and calculating many scientific subjects. I personally do not believe it is the ultimate bedrock of reality, although on occasions I must admit I have 'weakened in my own inner being ' to think it could be. But, do currently feel ,it is at least one or two layers up.

 

I do feel that to make many fundamental new discoveries we do need to somehow penetrate to those lower layers , and the access , on those occasions ( not all occasions ) I believe , we do need to use such tools as observation, hypothesis, and other such looser tools to make the initial access to the new physics, or whatever subject area we need to access.

 

I do accept totally ( though that might be a bit rash ) that maths has a pretty 'core style ' position and role in a lot of established physics , and accept that a lot of expert mathematicians are beavering away making Hugh progress in their subject area. I do accept that . I am though very sensitive to the area of science ,that I have been discussing throughout this thread .

 

That is ' the borders of science ' , the ' blue sky ideas ' of tomorrow's science. The ' whole big picture ' of the universe , cosmos , whatever, . And I do not exclude that maths ' might be required ' to bore down to some fundamental ' sub structure ' that we do not yet fully appreciate . But on the other hand , I do have a serious 'hunch ' , that the ONLY access to that ,future domain, that blue sky phenomenon , that far distant wonderland , that deep ,deep, underlying fundamental whatever , ..will .. Only .. In the initial stages be touched on, by a Non mathematical route!

 

I think the 'explorer ' metaphors ,in me are saying ' sorry chaps ' ' I am going to have go on ahead , with all your heavy equipment , and leave you here a while , chugging away , and go down this 'hole ' traveling light. Or climb this cliff face , with a light a load as possible. Or take off across this ocean , or this atmosphere , with some totally different vehicles and equipment ! ' Don't go away , " but I need to nip over this ridge ,to see what's causing that weird noise and smell, and strange smoke "

 

Mike

Edited April 5, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Acme]

...

That is ' the borders of science ' , the ' blue sky ideas ' of tomorrow's science. The ' whole big picture ' of the universe , cosmos , whatever, . And I do not exclude that maths ' might be required ' to bore down to some fundamental ' sub structure ' that we do not yet fully appreciate . But on the other hand , I do have a serious 'hunch ' , that the ONLY access to that ,future domain, that blue sky phenomenon , that far distant wonderland , that deep ,deep, underlying fundamental whatever , ..will .. Only .. In the initial stages be touched on, by a Non mathematical route!

 

Mike

Seems to me the crux of the matter is that you don't know enough math to check the work of those skilled in it and so you mistrust it, i.e. don't feel 'safe' with it.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Seems to me the crux of the matter is that you don't know enough math to check the work of those skilled in it and so you mistrust it, i.e. don't feel 'safe' with it.

Well there may be an element of truth in what you say in your comment . Yes. But every man to his own 'skills and capability' .

I must be honest , I am not sure how to define mine . They are there though, and I have , and do use them to some beneficial end .

 

The distrust, I believe I have , is that the equipment of maths is sometimes too heavy for the journey to some of the areas we could be investigating with different lighter equipment. ( metaphorically I mean of course ) . ( like trying to bore a 1 mm hole in a piece of computer motherboard electronics with a 3/4 inch drill bit . )

 

It probably yet remains , as to what my ' sticky end ' will be !

 

Mike

But without some good mathematical understanding of how one would expect the Universe to behave how would one identify the need for dark matter and dark energy?Sure, but again, we need to match the data to models as best we can and use the discrepancy to help build new models. Without some mathematical framework it is just a 'stab in the dark'.I would say that using mathematics is the only way to explore these possibilities. You are trying to make sense of some data, whatever that is, and the only way to do that is via mathematics and models. You need some idea of what you would expect to see to know you have seen something else.And why would this not be uncovered using a blend of mathematics and observation?

I don't disagree with most of what you say ajb,

 

In fact I do not want to become known as someone who disagree,s with a maths approach , goodness knows I spent many a year torturing my brain with the stuff. And am uncannily still drawn to those simple equations which seem to mean a profound lot! .

 

But I must say , fore the specific task of ' blue sky research ' , I am pushing for a " maths free zone " type set of tools, which will enable some discoveries to be achieved, which will be impeded by a ridged mathematical approach .

 

Mike

Edited April 5, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Acme]

Well there may be an element of truth in what you say in your comment . Yes. But every man to his own 'skills and capability' .

I must be honest , I am not sure how to define mine . They are there though, and I have , and do use them to some beneficial end .

You appear to be a skilled artist so be content with that.

 

The distrust, I believe I have , is that the equipment of maths is sometimes too heavy for the journey to some of the areas we could be investigating with different lighter equipment. ( metaphorically I mean of course ) . ( like trying to bore a 1 mm hole in a piece of computer motherboard electronics with a 3/4 inch drill bit . )

Just because you can't lift the load does not mean others can't.

 

 

It probably yet remains , as to what my ' sticky end ' will be !

 

Mike

I don't understand what that 'sticky' means, but I suppose in the end you will keep whining.

PS There is an implication in all you have said that mathematicians lack the gestalt you have promoted; nothing could be further from the truth. To quote a most practical man:

What science can there be more noble, more excellent, more useful for people, more admirably high and demonstrative, than this of mathematics? ~Benjamin Franklin

Edited April 6, 2015 by Acme

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You appear to be a skilled artist so be content with that. Just because you can't lift Just because you can't lift the load does not mean others can't. load does not mean others can't.I don't understand what that 'sticky' means, but I suppose in the end you will keep whining.PS There is an implication in all you have said that mathematicians lack the gestalt you have promoted; nothing could be further from the truth. To quote a most practical man:What science can there be more noble, more excellent, more useful for people, more admirably high and demonstrative, than this of mathematics? ~Benjamin Franklin

-------

Just because you can't lift the load does not mean others can't. ...

 

Yes, quite agree with that.

 

----------

 

-----------

There is an implication in all you have said that mathematicians lack the gestalt you have promoted;

 

No. That is not what I am trying to say . . I am trying to say there are tools or states of minds ,that are best for certain occasions . And I am not even saying this as an absolute rule , but generally , in an exploratory , borderline, boundary of science, blue sky situation , namely 'often in front ' ( not always) , that :- an observation based, hypothesising, even speculating , style :- is the most suitable approach in the first instance. To be too rigorous, too exacting in belief, too inflexible and rigid in the early exploration, could mean ignoring sensitive indications of a lead into new , unknown , regions of discovery.

 

And I am not saying that individuals , including mathematicians are incapable of such an approach . But if they are to enter that frame of mind, there is a need of a " willing suspension of disbelief " for the times they are mentally occupied in discovery exploits. Or to take other style, explorers , more seriously, when they ' blather on ' in Non Mathematical language .

 

-----------------

 

I hope that makes some form of sense !

 

Mike

Edited April 6, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

O.k. I understand your Straw man argument comment. That is fair enough. I just get a bit twitchy when maths is brought up so often , as the "b all and end all " of science and discovery.

It's not. It is, however, a required part, and is often the part that's missing in discussions that occur here. That's why it's brought up.

 

I do feel that to make many fundamental new discoveries we do need to somehow penetrate to those lower layers , and the access , on those occasions ( not all occasions ) I believe , we do need to use such tools as observation, hypothesis, and other such looser tools to make the initial access to the new physics, or whatever subject area we need to access.

Which we do, as has been repeatedly stated throughout the thread. Which raises the question of why this thread has gone on for >350 posts.

[Acme]

 

There is an implication in all you have said that mathematicians lack the gestalt you have promoted;

No. That is not what I am trying to say . . I am trying to say there are tools or states of minds ,that are best for certain occasions . And I am not even saying this as an absolute rule , but generally , in an exploratory , borderline, boundary of science, blue sky situation , namely 'often in front ' ( not always) , that :- an observation based, hypothesising, even speculating , style :- is the most suitable approach in the first instance. To be too rigorous, too exacting in belief, too inflexible and rigid in the early exploration, could mean ignoring sensitive indications of a lead into new , unknown , regions of discovery.

 

And I am not saying that individuals , including mathematicians are incapable of such an approach . But if they are to enter that frame of mind, there is a need of a " willing suspension of disbelief " for the times they are mentally occupied in discovery exploits. Or to take other style, explorers , more seriously, when they ' blather on ' in Non Mathematical language .

 

-----------------

 

I hope that makes some form of sense !

 

Mike

 

The operative term in all you just said is blather, which is more-or-less equivalent to my using the word whine. Both terms invoke an element of annoyance and indeed you have annoyed us and continue to blithely do so. Get over it.

 

It is mathematics that offers the exact natural sciences a certain measure of security which, without mathematics, they could not attain. ~Albert Einstein

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The operative term in all you just said is blather, which is more-or-less equivalent to my using the word whine. Both terms invoke an element of annoyance and indeed you have annoyed us and continue to blithely do so. Get over it.It is mathematics that offers the exact natural sciences a certain measure of security which, without mathematics, they could not attain. ~Albert Einstein

.

. Yes, but it might be annoying you, because you do not like to entertain the idea , that in the circumstances I illustrated , NOT in the main body of science , I might just be right. , ..to some extent .

 

Mathematicians and computer programmers have , in large measure , claimed Science as their province . I do believe , despite the quote from Einstein , which I am sure he might have warmed slightly to my comments , that this desire to put maths on too high a pedestal, is what has led to the ..SLEW.. in engineering development , to produce the technological societies , which are making the current world a very vulnerable home !

 

That's how seriously I make my point on behalf of a possible more humanistic society that could be grown out of a more balanced distribution of the methodology of scientific development. In other words , to some extent lets look for new discoveries which have a heavier leaning to how we are, how we think , what's good for us both physically and mentally. Maybe the over bias to the use of mathematics as an exploratory tool, has been the source of , slew towards a mechanistic , and thus less humanistic society.

 

Who knows ! Some science utopia which might lay just beyond the horizon , yet to be discovered, if only we knew where and how to look for it.

 

There appears to have for a long time been a battle between ' function and form ' . The human body of how both can co-exist !

 

Mike

 

Ps This is not political but the thoughts of a. Retired Engineering world traveller .

.

. .. , I might just be right. , ..to some extent .

Mathematicians and computer programmers have , in large measure , claimed Science as their province . I do believe , despite the quote from Einstein , which I am sure he might have warmed slightly to my comments , that this desire to put maths on too high a pedestal, is what has led to the ..SLEW.. in engineering development , to produce the technological societies , which are making the current world a very vulnerable home !

That's how seriously I make my point on behalf of a possible more humanistic society that could be grown out of a more balanced distribution of the methodology of scientific development. In other words , to some extent lets look for new discoveries which have a heavier leaning to how we are, how we think , what's good for us both physically and mentally. Maybe the over bias to the use of mathematics as an exploratory tool, has been the source of , slew towards a mechanistic , and thus less humanistic society.

Who knows ! .

So really now we have come to the two words in the original proposed question

.

" Is Mathematics Alone a "SAFE MEDIUM " for exploring.......etc

 

If what I have just stated about the world is true , then it is NOT a SAFE MEDIUM for exploring ALONE or In Front for that matter.

 

Mike

Edited April 6, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

If what I have just stated about the world is true , then it is NOT a SAFE MEDIUM for exploring ALONE or In Front for that matter.

 

But it isn't used ALONE. No one claims it is used ALONE. Scientists have always used imagination, observation, dreams, hypotheses, speculation, luck, bouncing ideas off colleagues, and many other techniques. (But the results of any of those will necessarily be tested using mathematics. Because they are not "safe mediums" without it.) That is why this thread is 19 pages of pointless strawman argument.

[swansont]

Mathematicians and computer programmers have , in large measure , claimed Science as their province .

Asserted without evidence.

 

I do believe , despite the quote from Einstein , which I am sure he might have warmed slightly to my comments , that this desire to put maths on too high a pedestal, is what has led to the ..SLEW.. in engineering development , to produce the technological societies , which are making the current world a very vulnerable home !

Vulnerable? To what? And what's the connection to maths?

 

From a scientific perspective, it's only a problem if it doesn't work. Mathematical endeavors still have to be tested against experiment. You are the only one asserting that "math alone" is going on, and repeating this mantra doesn't change the straw in this straw man into gold.

 

 

If what I have just stated about the world is true , then it is NOT a SAFE MEDIUM for exploring ALONE or In Front for that matter.

<sigh>

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

But it isn't used ALONE. No one claims it is used ALONE. Scientists have always used imagination, observation, dreams, hypotheses, speculation, luck, bouncing ideas off colleagues, and many other techniques. (But the results of any of those will necessarily be tested using mathematics. Because they are not "safe mediums" without it.) That is why this thread is 19 pages of pointless strawman argument.

Far from it. I think points that have been ' aired here ' , are how many scientifically inclined individuals , who are NOT mathematicians , have been put off , giving their valuable contribution, and not joined in some really possible worthwhile scientific discovery .

This , all because they think that they have to be good at maths , to take part.

 

I am saying there is a place for such individuals , and they should not be discouraged, just because they are not mathematicians. They have moved off and joined the Arts as an easier, alternative option. Yet these individuals , have imagination .. And all the things mentioned apart from maths . Why can they not join in with science to help in discovery , rather than abandoning science to all those confident in mathematics . ( which by dint of conflicting mental processes, tends , dare I say it , the ardent mathematicians tend to be slightly less flamboyant in their mathematical minds, due to the rigorous , ridged nature of maths ) oops !

 

Mike

Edited April 6, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Mike, one day it would be nice if you could start and continue a thread where you don't soap box everyone into oblivion. Thread closed.