Re: definition of science

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Mon Apr 25 2005 - 17:08:04 EDT

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:31:51 -0400 "Alexanian, Moorad"
<alexanian@uncw.edu> writes:
> The definition of science I gave is metaphysically sound. The
> question is if it excludes from science something that is clearly
> scientific. I do not think so. The definition is not reductionist
> since it includes the nonphysical aspect of reality. All human
> concepts, e.g., mathematical, values, meaning, are abstractions with
> no physical reality. Witness even the number pi, which is a purely
> human conception.
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
The last sentence presents a curious dogma. It is purely nominalistic, a
view not universally shared. Many mathematicians are persuaded that they
discover rather than construct such relationships. Of course, one may
recognize that all terms are human inventions, but this does not mean
that anything we talk about has no reality beyond our concepts.

If pi is "a purely human conception," it follows that the rest of math is
equally so. Consequently, the equations that describe physical reality do
not. It's all rather arbitrary, and there is no lunatic fringe of
pseudoscientists.
Dave
Received on Mon Apr 25 17:12:39 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 25 2005 - 17:12:43 EDT