Quantiative Science Before Galileo
in [Math]
|
Prev: Unhappiness about product rule
Next: look upon 231! not as #rearrangements but as volume or time #647 Correcting Math
From: Bret Cahill on 29 Jul 2010 16:40 > > > > > > > Yet you believe that those in the "soft sciences" are qualified to > > > > > > > comment on the "hard sciences"? ...particularly those that are not > > > > > > > well understood? > > > > > > > I would offer one example of how the hard sciences absolutely require > > > > > > the soft social sciences. Peer review, which is a social science based > > > > > > upon various sociology methodologies > > > > > > Peer review is not based upon any social science whatsoever. A person > > > > > chooses those to review an article. > > > > > Peer review is based upon social science methodology and statistics, a > > > > soft science. > > > > When, for example, a mathematical theory is reviewed, a chairperson > > > chooses the reviewers. That is the method. > > > Math ain't science. > > > Bret Cahill > > Except that all pure sciences depend heavily on it. As well as a lot of other thangs. Bret Cahill
From: spudnik on 29 Jul 2010 17:24 she got the name from her Remington-Rand typewriter, y'know. the sophomores on campus who thrill to it ... nevermind. "What Galileo Avoided" re Kepler: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2005/2005_50-52/2005-51/pdf/box9_49.pdf > Ayn Rand, a silly girl fiction writer, was like those > immigrants who always adopt the extreme vices of their new country and > then make the vices 100 times worse than the original. thus: the "dimensionality," or at leat the base of digitization, has always been implicit to le theorem <<derniere>> de Fermatttt, as well as to les courbes de ... duh. thus: where did that PDF go, of M&M's paper, where they show the soi-dissant "null resultage?..." anyway, I thank the dood that posted it. thus: I've been saying thus-like for years, after reading of it apres XXXValdez: Typically, there are enough microbes in the ocean to consume half of any oil spilled in a month or two, says Howarth. Such microbes have been found in every ocean of the world sampled, from the Arctic to Antarctica. But there are reasons to think that the process may occur more quickly in the Gulf than in other oceans. --les ducs d'oil! http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-8-the-permian-basin-gang/ --Light, A History! http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
From: Chazwin on 30 Jul 2010 04:35
On Jul 29, 9:40 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yet you believe that those in the "soft sciences" are qualified to > > > > > > > > comment on the "hard sciences"? ...particularly those that are not > > > > > > > > well understood? > > > > > > > > I would offer one example of how the hard sciences absolutely require > > > > > > > the soft social sciences. Peer review, which is a social science based > > > > > > > upon various sociology methodologies > > > > > > > Peer review is not based upon any social science whatsoever. A person > > > > > > chooses those to review an article. > > > > > > Peer review is based upon social science methodology and statistics, a > > > > > soft science. > > > > > When, for example, a mathematical theory is reviewed, a chairperson > > > > chooses the reviewers. That is the method. > > > > Math ain't science. > > > > Bret Cahill > > > Except that all pure sciences depend heavily on it. > > As well as a lot of other thangs. > > Bret Cahill Well not really. maths and observation are usually enough. |