Harv wrote
" the question of what separates mathematics from science is a pseudo one it is not feasible to derive a mathematical approach or logical approach that is any more fundamental or less prone to error than science itself.


Hi, Harv,
Some of what you write finds me in agreement.
The above leaves me skeptical.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but without rigor (rooting out logical and math errors, there is no way exce[t credentialism for establishing "truth."
Does the Inquisitor again trump Galileo by your method? We remember how diabolically the non-rigorous authorities use this license !

1) Here you define math, logic, and science as not being separable...possibly arrange-able in outline form with logic and math being ancillary to science?

2) Some problems might require MORE intensive logic or math in processing THAN extensive data gathering. . . while some problems would require the opposite.

3) If this is so, then error rates on solutions
will vary according to how effectively strategies using math and logic were selected. By what method will you select these strategies if not by math (ie measuring the geometry of the problem's parameters) or logic (surveying the problem using previously tested findings and standard definitions).

Science can be defined as "getting the truth with an all-out, no-holds-barred use of your mind"
but without math and logic, that pseudo separation seems a hazard for creating a pseudo-science. How have I misunderstood you?

Best wishes for safe happy new year

Mike

• 'except' credentialism - quiet - December 30, 2001 - 23:57 UTC
• That means in regards to our understanding the world - harvey1 - December 31, 2001 - 00:53 UTC
  • Correction - harvey1 - December 31, 2001 - 00:56 UTC
• That means in regards to our understanding the world - harvey1 - December 31, 2001 - 00:56 UTC
  • bits, bytes, bards, & bouts with bullies - quiet - December 31, 2001 - 01:32 UTC