By these criterion, Psychology is the King of the Sciences. Nick knows full well, but many Friammers would be surprised how much effort psychologists put into projects that are 'not even close' to formally correct!
Eric On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 12:43 AM, "Nicholas Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>Dear Friammers, >> >>We have decided to carry on from our seminar on Emergence to one on >Mathematical Thinking. Although we don't meet for a month, I found myself >reading the first assignment, Thurston's On Proof and Progress in >Mathematics. Now Thurston loves mathematics and is >apparently good at it, but he is firm in arguing that the process of proof is >not as the normative account would have it. Given our local debates >about the ideal of formalism and given my suspicion that many computer >programmers suffer from math envy (the way experimental psychologists suffer >from physics envy), I was astonished by the following paragraphs. > >> > >> >The standared of correctness and completeness necessary >to get a computer program to work at all is a couple of orders of magnitude >higher than the mathematical community's standard of valid >proof. > >> >>Astonished, and yet, instantly convinced that it was true. >Note that Thurston is proud of how mathematicians do their work; no criticism >here. >> > >>I think that mathematics is one of the most >intellectually gratifying of huan activities. Because we have a high >standard for clear and convincing thinking and because we place a high value on >listening to and trying to understand each other, we don't engage in >interminable arguments and endless redoing of our mathematics. We are >prepared to be convinced by others. Intellctually, mathematics moves very >quickly. Entire mathmatical landscapes change and change again in amazing >ways during a single career. >> > >> >When one considers how hard it is to write a computer >program even approaching the intellectual scope of a good mathematical paper >and how much greater time and effort have to be put into it to make it >'almost'formally correct, it is preposterous to claim that mathematics as we >practice is any where near formally corrrect. >> > >>You would almost think that computer programming was the Queen of >the Sciences. >> >>Nick >> >> >> >>I wonder what you all think about it. >> >>Nick >> >> >>Nicholas S. Thompson >>Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >>Clark University (<#>) >><http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> >> ><http://www.cusf.org> [City University of Santa Fe] >> >> >> > > > > ============================================================ >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 > > Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================ 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
