[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response

On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 06:05:34PM +0000, Phil Bigelow scripsit:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:33:38 -0400 Graydon <oak@uniserve.com> writes:
> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 04:46:32PM +0000, Phil Bigelow scripsit:
> > > That sounds like the scientific method to me.  Tell me where I am
> > > wrong.
> > 
> > Math is under no obligation to correspond to the tangible universe.
> > Science is.  That both are required to be independent of any
> > particular person's understanding doesn't make them the same thing
> > in the face of that fundamental difference.
> When I was in college, there was a guy down the hall in my dormatory
> that said things like that.  He didn't go out on dates.

As substantive disagreement goes, that lacks something. :)

Science is about the pre-existing material world; math, while sometimes
used to describe the material world, isn't.  It's about elegance and

-- Graydon