A fascinating discussion. E.O. Wilson made much the same point in his book Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, where he argued that a narrow reliance on mathmatics had destroyed philosophy in particular, while in general an increasing reliance on specialization and mathmatics had handicapped scientists, limiting new hypothesis to variation of current thinking in a particular discipline. http://www.amazon.com/Consilience-Knowledge-Edward-O-Wilson/dp/067976867X/re f=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8 <http://www.amazon.com/Consilience-Knowledge-Edward-O-Wilson/dp/067976867X/r ef=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230443706&sr=8-1> &s=books&qid=1230443706&sr=8-1
cjf Christopher J. Feola President nextPression, Inc. www.nextPression.com _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 11:45 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] art and science Hi Jack, I'd like to take advantage of your post to raise an issue that is related--but not directly--to what you are discussing. You wrote, "What has made mathematics so important in science, especially physics, is the need for replacing word-fuzziness with precision in prediction." Although no one can doubt the importance of mathematics to physics and the other sciences, what do you think of this somewhat contrary position. The damage mathematics has done to science is that it has substituted numbers for concepts. Mathematics is a language of equations and numbers. Of course equations operate within frameworks, which themselves involve concepts--such as dimensionality, symmetry, etc. These are important concepts. But the equations themselves are conceptless. They are simply relationships among numbers that match observation. I suspect that this is one of the reasons the general public is turned off to much of science. The equations don't speak to them. I would say that the equations don't speak to scientists either except to the extent that they manage to interpret them in terms of concepts: this is the strength of this field; this is the mass of this object; etc. But the concepts are not part of the equations. And (famously) quantum mechanics has no concepts for its equations! The equations work, but no one can conceptualize what they mean. So how should one think about quantum mechanics? As a black box with dials one can read? What should the public think about quantum mechanics if that's the best that scientists can do? I can think of two primary goals for science: to understand nature and to give us some leverage over nature. Equations give us the leverage; concepts give us the understanding. -- Russ On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Jack Leibowitz <[email protected]> wrote: ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.0/1866 - Release Date: 12/27/2008 8:49 PM
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
