Re: definition of science

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <>
Date: Mon Apr 25 2005 - 18:07:29 EDT

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 17:31:02 -0400 "Alexanian, Moorad"
<> writes:
> Why was Eugene Wigner so impressed and puzzled with why mathematics
> describes nature so successfully? Our laws of nature that are
> expressed in mathematical forms are over idealizations of physical
> reality. For instance, there is no real continuum but such a concept
> is useful when describing macroscopic systems. Abstract human
> thoughts are associated with external things but are distinct from
> them. That is why one of the essential components of science is
> predictive power and not merely explanatory power. Predictions
> attest to the usefulness of human thought when describing nature.
> Predictive power sets science apart from pseudoscience.
> Moorad
> ________________________________
I guess that for the same reason that lots of people are surprised--they
didn't expect it. But this demonstrates nothing relevant. As to
idealizations, they are everywhere and at every level. So? Carnot's
thermodynamics worked as well formulated in terms of caloric as in
revisions. So we come back to the original question: Why are all the
mathematicians who disagree with you wrong?
Received on Mon Apr 25 18:10:41 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 25 2005 - 18:10:42 EDT