Mathematics as a tool

“Mathematics as a tool” of science

Click to access 2015-2-Lenhard.pdf

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics

by R. W. HAMMING

“The logical side of the nature of the universe requires further exploration.”

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Hamming.html

Do you need to know math for doing great science?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/do-you-need-to-know-math-for-doing-great-science/

What may look like paradoxes in math and science are really just points at which our models of the universe break down. And it’s a good thing that they do this. After all, the only way to have a perfect, completely accurate map is to make it exactly the size and shape of the territory it is mapping. We sacrifice accuracy so that we get a piece of data small and simple enough for us to process while still being a generally good guide around the territory. In order to have math and science that fit the universe perfectly, we’d have to make them as complicated as the universe is, and that would defeat the point of having them because they are essentially theoretical tools used to simplify and check what we see

Science
there is a whole book wriiten on Quantum paradoxes

F. Selleri, Quantum Paradoxes and Physical Reality, Kluer Academic Publishers, 1990,

quote-from other scientists

Now even though quantum mechanics is paradoxical no experiment has contradicted quantum theory predictions and quantum theory is the most successful that has ever existed in science.

“Similarly there is ample evidence of theories giving the predicted results even though they collapse into absurdity i.E. Are self-contradictory or paradoxical such as those in quantum mechanics- just as there is in mathematics. Heisenberg notes that “ the strangest experience of those years was that the paradoxes of quantum theory did not disappear during this process of clarification; on the contrary they have become even more marked and exciting.” F. Selleri, Quantum Paradoxes and Physical Reality, Kluer Academic Publishers, 1990, p.V111.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/irrationality-is-no-hindrance-for-things-being-true-mathematics-and-science-examples

How to sift reality/facts from superstition/myth?

Paarsurrey Notes on:

Al-An`am Chapter 6 : Verse 117 And if thou obey the majority of those on earth, they will lead thee astray from Allah’s way. They follow nothing but mere conjecture, and they do nothing but lie. Read More: Short English Commentary | Detailed English Commentary | Urdu Tafaseer اردو تفاسیر

Yunus Chapter 10 : Verse 67 Behold! whoever is in the heavens and whoever is in the earth is Allah’s. Those who call on others than Allah do not really follow these ‘partners’; they follow only a conjecture, and they do nothing but guess. Read More: Short English Commentary | Detailed English Commentary | Urdu Tafaseer اردو تفاسیر

Al-Zukhruf Chapter 43 : Verse 21 And they say, ‘If the Gracious God had so willed, we should not have worshipped them.’ They have no knowledge whatsoever of that. They do nothing but conjecture.

How does one sift reality facts from superstition/myth, please?

Commonality in all religious scriptures, reasonableness, secure and pristine word of Revelation

Believe it or not, stress makes people “more superstitious”.

Superstition is the religion of feeble minds

Superstitions are irrational beliefs

Superstitions are myth not reality, actually, we have firm belief on superstitions and just because of this we consider them as real.

Our mind has great power and if we believe enough, we can create what our mind believes. The history and development of myths, superstitions and ceremonies are extremely interesting.

• Valeed 7 years agofrom Pakistan

You are very right John these false beliefs have become so much rooted in our minds and societies that it is hard to get rid of them. Fortune tellers had made a fool out of millions of people and are on their way to do so in future also. Your wife is facing the same scenario as millions have faced before and continued to… I hope so she understands the true reality of life. May Allah bless her and give her health…

DREAMS WICCA & WITCHCRAFT ASTROLOGY THE PARANORMAL MAGIC FORTUNE TEL

The Science of Superstition

Parallel Sessions: Scientific Superstitions and Scientific Temper Myths, Superstitions and Propaganda in Scientific Age

In fact, “pattern finding” and “order seeking” mechanisms form the basis for nearly all existing myths

The same mechanism also makes us extremely vulnerable to all kinds of deceptions and manipulative techniques that impair our critical faculties. We may imagine things that don’t exist, make false judgments, accept uncritical claims, misinterpret facts and arrive at conclusions that are completely at odds with reality.
https://www.researchgate.net/

Can we remove the dogma from science?

#1 paarsurrey

Please
Regards

OOOOO
https://www.quora.com/Has-science-become-too-dogmatic

 

Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?—-(2)

I started a thread on the above topic in my most cherished discussion forum 

I give here my posts mentioning the post numbers without giving the names of persons in response to whose posts I wrote my comments. Please click the post numbers to get to know the persons.

#1 paarsurrey, 

Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?
All methods are philosophical so must it be. Please

Regards

#31

P….. said: ↑ (in response to post #27 of S.…. ↑ )

You have not presented a *theory*. You haven’t even presented a coherent hypothesis. You have presented a collection of vague ideas and rather fantastic claims.

If you want to actually present a *theory* that includes a changing gravitational constant, you would first have to describe *in detail* the effects on the dynamics of standard situations under your theory. For example, you could claim that the gravitational constant is decreasing over time: G=a-bt. Then, you could apply that to the gravitational force: F=(a-bt)Mm/r^2 and, with F=ma, see how that would affect the dynamics of, say, planetary orbits. This would allow you to give estimates (at least, maximum values) for your parameters a and b. In particular, the value of b would be significant.

Then, you could compare the results you get with the observations we have of galaxies that are, say, 200 million light years away. Since the dynamics would be quite different 200 million years ago (by your hypothesis), the differences in the dynamics of such galaxies should be quite clear. Have you done this? What were the results? How do you deal with the fact that a galaxy only 200 million light years away is a very close galaxy on the cosmic scale?

If you want to claim that the changing gravitational constant affects something like the speed of light, you will have to extend your basic theory to include such effects *and* test the results of such an extension.

By the way, to even get started on this program would take learning at least a bit of mathematics. Differential equations would get you in the door, but probably a bit of perturbation theory would also be required to give definite predictions. If you want to include a changing speed of light, you would also have to learn special and possibly general relativity and formulate the changes in those required under your program.

Have you done ANY of this? No.

So you do not have a theory.

Click to expand…

Paarsurrey wrote: #31

“a changing gravitational constant”

Is it because it helps the humans to have some perception of the Ever-Eternal-God, His Oneness does not change, is ever-constant , yet His attributes change all the time, so other things created by Him always keep changing/moving/orbiting, cannot stop unless He commands them to stop, and they finish? Please
Regards

Is faith the backbone of Science?

I started a thread on the above topic in my most cherished discussion forum 

I give here my posts mentioning the post numbers without giving the names of persons in response to whose posts I wrote my comments. Please click the post numbers to get to know the persons.

#1 paarsurrey

Is faith the backbone of Science?
Please

Regards

#3 l.……. wrote:

No. Science uses the scientific method of repeated experimentation and observation to battle any use of faith. When a “scientific theory” is presented, scientists scramble to do their best to disprove it.

Paarsurrey comments: #20

“repeated experimentation and observation to battle any use of faith.”

1. Does repeated “experimentation and observation” make it immune from the errors or blunders?
2. After how many experimentation the result understood/interpreted will be considered 100% correct?
3. Has it ever happened that the result understood to be correct was later found to be erroneous?
4. The word “repeated” shows that doubt was there in the very first place, and it was only out of faith that the  exercise was continued. Science is, therefore, the fruit of faith.
5. It is not a “battle” with faith, rather it is battle with doubt. Human conscience reject doubt, faith generates peace and  progress .

So, it is faith and faith alone in the “experimentation and observation” that science, the scientists and the people dealing in science that science “works”  and continues its endeavors. Please

Right? Please

Regards

OOOOOOOOOOOO

Search/Research:

*1 .

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

 

 

“Science says so” should not be an atheists ‘get out of jail free’ card

<www.religiousforums.com>Thread:”A Suggestion: A Science sub-forum”

Post #10

 Red Economist said: ↑

…………

I started the ‘what is proof of god’s existence for you?‘ thread and was really surprised at just how diverse the responses were. Not everyone has the same concept of proof, what can be proven/known and that is an area where some really crazy and intresting stuff can happen. the diversity of responses says theres a whole untapped reservior of crazy ideas waiting to be discovered.

On a bad day, Science is Atheism’s sacred cow, an appeal to authority and a stick to beat theists with. its a way of dressing up ignorance as someone else’s ‘facts’ rather than actually knowing what the science is, or accepting that science is not certain. its not just bad atheism but bad science too. I think a fair number of people would say science is not neutral and often favours naturalistic explanations. the idea that science is not up for debate has more to do with the belief that scientific explanations are self-evidently true, but that is the result of a lot of philosophical conflicts over previous centuries. Science, philosophy and religion were not in conflict until very recently in historical time (particularly after Darwin).

On a more personal level (here’s where I get biased ), it be nice to have an area where we could debate the big bang and quantum mechanics, because as a materialist, I have philosophical objections to both of them- but without actually the background or understanding to do so. Certian forms of nihilism also affect the validity of science as well. In the USSR, alot of current scientific theories were rejected as “not atheist” enough. Whilst that’s not a common view, it reflects the fact that science, philosophy and religion are intimately connected with one another. The inverse is that alot of theists equate science and materialism, thinking their religious beliefs can’t be reconciled with science, when this isn’t the case.

That may well be a similar position to how theists feel about evolution. The Big Bang does have theological interpretations as well and quantum mechanics can be used to defend religion on occassion. there is a conflict between the fact we don’t know alot about things about the science that conflict with our belief systems. if it worked, it would be a complex two way process. The controversy over climate change also doesn’t sit well with the idea that science is politically neutral.

What it boils down to is the idea that science can and should be debated and that doing so is a good way to learn about science and how they fit/conflict with people’s beliefs. “Science says so” should not be an athiests ‘get out of jail free’ card. Being able to do so, might well shift the balance away from the atheists who dominate RF in terms of activity and give theists a chance to learn and maybe to shine.There are smart theists on RF, but I think they get backed into a corner with the “where’s your proof” crowd. And maybe let a few sceptics out in the open. I mean how can we be sure the earth isn’t flat?

Anyway, I’m rambling. I’m not sure if it is feasible, but I thought it might be a welcome suggestion as it might open the door to a cultural shift that gets activity up a bit. I add a poll to see whether people would want something like this or not.

Click to expand…

Paarsurrey wrote:

I liked following points in your post:

• “Science says so” should not be an atheists ‘get out of jail free’ card.
• “where’s your proof”
• Science is Atheism’s sacred cow
• Science, philosophy and religion were not in conflict until very recently in historical time (particularly after Darwin)
• science, philosophy and religion are intimately connected with one another

You are a keen observer.
Regards

”Science can only discover what G-d has already created/evolved in nature?

<www.religiousforums.com>Thread:”Science can only discover what G-d has already created/evolved in nature?”

Please click the post # below to view,comments and or join discussion on the topic.

post #1

paarsurrey started the thread:”Science can only discover what G-d has already created/evolved in nature?”

For any claim and reason on behalf of science, please quote from:

• A peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute
• From a text book of science
• Please mention the specific science discipline that deals with it.

Thread open for Theists and the Atheists alike.
Regards

Post #12

 Thief Wrote:

The title is correct as is.
Proving is not required….see Webster’s

OOOOOOOO

First you are told…. ‘this is this…and that is that’.
Then someone else will come along and say…’No it ain’t’.

I do BELIEVE as I post!
and for those who might care to…pavornocturnum@hotmail.com

paarsurrey liked the above post.

Post #26

Thief

The point is clear…..
God created the universe….such is faith.
Science seeks to know how…..

OOOOOOOOOOO

First you are told…. ‘this is this…and that is that’.
Then someone else will come along and say…’No it ain’t’.I do BELIEVE as I post!
and for those who might care to…pavornocturnum@hotmail.com

“pompous wanky ‘science’ fanboy”

<www.religiousforums.com>Thread:”When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?”

Please click the post # below to view,comments and or join discussion on the topic.

Post #1

paarsurrey started the Topic ” When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?”  :

 Open for discussion for the Theists and the Atheists alike.

Regards

In response following posts are a must read

Post #65 by LegionOnomaMoi Well-Known Member

Post #69, #71, and #73 by our friend Augustus

Augustus

science (concept), science (practice), scientists, scientific publications-One must differentiate between

<www.religiousforums.com>Thread:”When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?”

Please click the post # below to view,comments and or join discussion on the topic.

Post #1

paarsurrey started the Topic ” When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?”  :

 Open for discussion for the Theists and the Atheists alike.

Regards

Post #62

jojom said: ↑

Not that the reader is wrong, but doesn’t understand what’s being said. No reason to to overstate the situation, Augustus.

Boy, if this isn’t a pile of manufactured crap. Thing is, just by your juvenile renunciation here its evident you’ve never read an “academic journal” in your life, much less understood one enough to pass judgment.

Augustus wrote

I assume you are highly familiar with academic journals if you can see through my paper thin charade so easily. My ‘juvenile renunciation’ certainly deserves a rapid chastisement from a more learned individual, one so wise in the ways of science. Consider me humbled

jojom said: ↑

. . . . . . . At least you’re keeping true to character. Assassination by contrived failings this time. It wouldn’t be hard to concluded you actually believe this baloney, but in as much as you’ve strung so many distortions on one line it’s clear you’ve given your imagination free rein to its bias. Thing is, Augustus, when you overstate your case it quickly looses all veracity. The mark of a truly rank amateur. Sad, but also amusing.

Augustus wrote

What’s wrong with many ‘rationalists’ (apart from the fact that they vastly overstate their own rationality), is that they feel the need to get caught up in wanky ‘science’ fanboyism. “Oh no! Somebody has tainted the honour of science by claiming it isn’t the omnipotent and omniscient god that I believe it is, stand back whilst I give the scoundrel who defamed her a stern verbal rebuke!”.

The problem is people like you can’t actually differentiate between science (concept), science (practice), scientists, scientific publications, etc. and get themselves into a fankle when anything with some connection to ‘science’ is criticised in any way.

Automatically you jump to the conclusion that this person is either an imbecile or some science-hating Taliban fundamentalist type who wants to ban books and insist the world is flat. “Oh No! Augustus is trying to ‘asassinate’ science. He must be stopped!”.

The biggest danger with playing the pompous, wanky fanboy card though is that you end up looking like a bit of a trumpet if you are wrong.

The points I made are frequently raised by more enlightened people involved with sciences and academia and have been mentioned in scientific journals and discussion for a long time. You can read up on it if you want to know more, it’s an interesting, but worrying, topic.

Now, as a ‘truly rank amateur’, a ‘truly rank amateur’ that has ‘evidently never read an academic journal in my life’ ‘let alone understood one’, how long do you think it would take me to find support for what I said from within an actual scientific journal? [Hint: I already did it, took me about 6 seconds].

Now I wouldn’t want to patronise someone as knowledgable as yourself by posting a link. I assume you will be able to find one far more easily than a truly rank juvenile amateur such as myself. Please let me know if you enjoyed the read though and if your views have changed as a result of it.

If you can’t find anything though and would like a helping hand all you need to do is ask: “Hi Augustus. Sorry, it seems I was wrong in saying you were a ‘sad but amusing truly rank juvenile amateur who speaks manufactured crap’. It has come to my attention that you have read at least 1 academic journal article. Would you be kind enough to share with me the article so I can understand why my pompous, wanky fanboyism was misguided? Thanks in advance. Jojom xx”

Just to remind you of my claims:

In many areas termed ‘science’ much if not most published material is wrong… frequently due to things such as poor methodology, poor maths, deliberate misrepresentation for professional or financial advancement and wishful thinking.

Happy hunting!

paarsurrey liked the above post.

When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?

<www.religiousforums.com>Thread:When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?

Please click the post # below to view,comments and or join discussion on the topic.

Post #1

paarsurrey started the Topic ” When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?”  :

Open for discussion for the Theists and the Atheists alike.
Regards

Post #32

Augustus wrote in response:

I find it interesting that most people have claimed that when ‘science talks gibberish’ it is because the reader doesn’t understand. The ‘science’ is right, it’s just the reader that is wrong.

Of course this is an issue, but in many areas termed ‘science’ much if not most of material published in academic journals is wrong.

When scientists talk gibberish it is frequently due to things such as poor methodology, poor mathematics (especially statistics and probability), deliberate misrepresentation for professional or financial advancement and wishful thinking.

In terms of language though, scientists aren’t half as bad as other academics who tend to use the most complex way possible to explain a simple concept just to affect an image of sophistication. Can’t remember who it was but someone said something along the lines of ‘the value of an academic discipline is inversely proportional to how long a layman can talk about it before the expert realises the layman doesn’t know what they are talking about’.

You like this.