Scientific Quandary- or Logical Devil's Advocate

Post Reply New Topic

Well, I mean, just to point out straightway, mathematical biology is a burgeoning field (I would say most the applied work my professors do tends to be what could be classified as math biology). Math isn't just the language of physics, it's pretty much the language of anything precise.

A pure mathematician definitely is not as biased as a biologist who form ideas on theories for the most part. Math is sound.
I think Shiggily demonstrated that the emotional response from "scientists" is personal because they have a belief system that they cling too and any questions which challenge their mode is scary to them because they would have to reevaluate everything.

It's like if you poke one hole in their "reality" their whole bubble world explodes.

is your perception of your reality more valid than my perception of mine? that sounds suspiciously subjective to me..... i fail to see how it is necessary to keep making this personal. i'm just saying 'hey, consider this....'

i feel i should also state that i am not a scientist, so perhaps these comments don't refer to me. i am actually an artist and a writer....but i'm sure you could have guessed that from my biases

I question my perception all the time. I realize there is much to the universe that I may never understand since I'm a mere human who is limited by my senses. Why is questioning the idea of what we believe is real or natural such a bad thing? Isn't the truth more interesting/mentally stimulating than a comforting and perhaps outdated ideology?

where did i say this?


also, how can i know the difference between truth and ideology when i am a flawed human being? and why must you call my opinions outdated ideology? many here go on about emotional responses and their impracticality, but just can't resist being derisive and condescending in their 'correction' of others. i am much too humble to ever assume i have the 'truth' about anything. all i have are ideas, opinions, and biases. perhaps i don't belong here any more than i belong anywhere else. all i'm saying is: why is it so hard for some people to admit that things might exist that they can't imagine or comprehend? you don't have to provide obviously judgmental and patronising feedback to make your point. it's not necessary. i don't judge you for your beliefs in the purity of mathematics. math speaks to you, and it is how you view and describe your world, and to you it is beautiful. so i would guess anyway, for a proponent of mathematics. well, life speaks to me, and describes my reality, and is what i find beautiful, not math. it's not that i don't appreciate math at all; it's just not my language. i don't think it is appropriate to make a value judgment there.

a truly wise man understands that he knows nothing. but i'm sure you have many mathematical proofs that can debunk that statement, as well.

usually if someone states that their definition is different from mine it is an indicator for me to post my definition because it means there is a miscommunication. Then they post their definition and we can compromise on which one to go with for the purposes of the discussion. As I commonly have hang ups in discussions from me using dictionary definitions and another person using colloquial terms.

maybe shameless academic bias is an american anomaly, then.[/quote]

It is a possibility (as I stated in a response to Gromit) but I have been talking with him and I might have just been crappy luck with who I ended up with. I haven't had a chance to take courses overseas though I am vying for a job in mainland so I can go to University of Tokyo.

it is not, its just a habit where I have unspoken expectations of a reciprocal definition from you before I can proceed.

I switched to a major in math with a concentration in Biology. It is better for me, not necessarily in general. It allows me to be in a situation where my constant questions and challenges and need for proof is not met with irritability as I only take a few biology classes and mostly math classes. Essentially it gets me out of the hair of the biologists and allows me to pose the same questions to mathematicians who don't seem to mind, and actually encourage it.

it was just the concept that math is a tool of physics and not its basis. it is the language. without math physics wouldn't be the science it is, and without physics math wouldn't have the applications it has. They are closely intertwined. But I would only think math in general is more relevant because it existed before and has areas largely outside of physics. But that is not the answer specifically for the question you posted. The answer to your question is neither. They are too dependent on each other to be separated or considered more important or more relevant.

no, not you. or Orwell, or Gromit, or most of the people in the thread. The post was just for him.

ehhh I don't really think of it as that much of a 'soft' science. its just still developing (and at a rather fast rate), and there are some kinks that need to be worked out.

I did a class in mathematical biology... incredibly amazing new field. And very very addictive.

ehhh... science is a balancing act so in some circumstances your last sentence is a possibility. Just look at some of the major scientific discoveries. They shifted the whole world around and in some cases the entire basic assumptions of science had to be re-examined. And that's kind of scary stuff for a scientist.

I mean, there was a mathematician William Shanks, who died thinking he had contributed greatly to mathematics by spending his entire life calculating pi to 707 digits (only to be debunked 60 years later because he had made an error in the 528th place (and every digit afterward)). To think that everything you have worked for could be wrong is the most earth shattering and horrifying thing to a scientist or mathematician

Unpleasant but not horrifying. Every working scientist knows from the git-go that there is no absolute proof for any scientific theory and even the best theory (i.e. best to date) can be refuted by some new factual discovery tomorrow. Also the possibility of human error is always present. That is why scientists submit their findings and hypotheses to peer review. The difference between science and religion is that there is no bullet proof guarantee that the best founded theory will not someday be refuted by facts not yet known or by the revelation of error.

Isaac Newton's theory of gravitation has been refuted by the anomalous precession of the orbits of planets. This was discovered in the middle of the 19th century and a replacement theory provided by Albert Einstein (The General Theory of Relativity) completed the process of refutation by correctly predicting what Newton's theory incorrectly predicted. The disproof of Newtonian gravitation had to wait for the development of highly accurate telescopes which were developed during the 19th century.


ruveyn