ruveyn wrote:
PatrickNeville wrote:
Philosophy and maths are both needed. Philosophy can often be, depending on how you interpret it what gives a scientist that clear headed picture of what actually makes sense in relation to reality and moment of genius. Maths is crucial to be able prove any potential insight.
Philosophy without observable evidence is just an idea.
Maths without philosophy can potentially, (but not necessarily) become a framework of calculations which are describing a non existent phenomena.
1. Philosophy is mostly babble and of little use. It has been an impediment to real science since the time of Plato and Aristotle.
2. Purely theoretical and formal math is a form of entertainment (for mathematicians, primarily) and mental masturbation. Most formal (theoretical math) is not intended to clarify physical reality. Strangely enough, some purely formal disciplines have later on turned out to be useful.
ruveyn
That is your
interpreation of it. If I were to say you had a philosophy or to say anyone had a philosophy, I would say that it is using you common sense to judge whether the information available to you is rational. That is a totally acceptable interpretation of philosophy.
I was also making a general point that it possible for some areas of science to be founded in error then later need to be re-examined to make an existing model work or possibly be completely changed altogether. That would require insight. Insight which can be provided by maths.
_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here>
