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: krw on 13 Jul 2010 18:29 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:20:16 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist <reanimater_2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Jul 12, 7:04�am, "keith...(a)gmail.com" <keith...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 12, 12:48�am, dorayme <dora...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> >> >> >> > In article >> > <o_r_fairbairn-D3BA6B.23394311072...(a)70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.n >> > et>, >> > �Orval Fairbairn <o_r_fairbairn(a)earth_link.net> wrote: >> >> > > In article >> > > <76a4ae3a-0f1e-459b-99e6-6ec231a39...(a)k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, >> > > �Jeff Rubard <jeffrub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > On Jul 10, 4:32�pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: >> > > > > > > Or are you a conspiracy theorist who believes 98% of the scientists on >> > > > > > > the planet are in on a conspiracy? >> > > > > > That's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the >> > > > > > Earth. >> >> > > > > When did who believe that? >> >> > > > > Bret Cahill >> >> > > > Anyway, anyhow, anywhere /they/ chose. >> >> > > Please define "scientist." >> >> > Please don't. >> >> > > I do not consider social "scientists", ie. political "scientists," >> > > sociologists, psychologists, etc. to be qualified to comment on issues >> > > regarding the hard sciences. >> >> > Well, that is unwise of you. There are many issues "regarding th >> > hard sciences" that the hard scientists would be least qualified >> > to comment on. >> >> 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 is a necessary part of a large >part of hypothesis testing and verification. Hell hard science >requires grammar baby, and much more, else how would scientists even >explain anything, cept for deaf dumb and blind mathsheads who crunch >and get fat on numbers. Grammar is a science? What a bunch of BS. You must be one of those soft-in-the-head researchers. ...or maybe an English major. >Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a >scholarly process used in the publication of manuscripts and in the >awarding of funding for research. Publishers and funding agencies use >peer review to select and to screen submissions. The process also >forces authors to meet the standards of their discipline and thus >achieve scientific objectivity. Publications and awards that have not >undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by >scholars and professionals in many fields. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review Is this supposed to be relevant?
From: Bret Cahill on 13 Jul 2010 18:39 > >> > > > > > > Or are you a conspiracy theorist who believes 98% of the scientists on > >> > > > > > > the planet are in on a conspiracy? > >> > > > > > That's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the > >> > > > > > Earth. > > >> > > > > When did who believe that? > > >> > > > > Bret Cahill > > >> > > > Anyway, anyhow, anywhere /they/ chose. > > >> > > Please define "scientist." > > >> > Please don't. > > >> > > I do not consider social "scientists", ie. political "scientists," > >> > > sociologists, psychologists, etc. to be qualified to comment on issues > >> > > regarding the hard sciences. > > >> > Well, that is unwise of you. There are many issues "regarding th > >> > hard sciences" that the hard scientists would be least qualified > >> > to comment on. > > >> 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 is a necessary part of a large > >part of hypothesis testing and verification. Hell hard science > >requires grammar baby, and much more, else how would scientists even > >explain anything, cept for deaf dumb and blind mathsheads who crunch > >and get fat on numbers. > > Grammar is a science? That's _his_ point. Language certainly isn't a hard science. Bret Cahill "Psychology, the queen of sciences." -- Nietzsche
From: Bret Cahill on 13 Jul 2010 18:43 > > > > > > > > > > Or are you a conspiracy theorist who believes 98% of the scientists on > > > > > > > > > > the planet are in on a conspiracy? > > > > > > > > > That's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the > > > > > > > > > Earth. > > > > > > > > > When did who believe that? > > > > > > > > > Bret Cahill > > > > > > > > Anyway, anyhow, anywhere /they/ chose. > > > > > > > Please define "scientist." > > > > > > Please don't. > > > > > > > I do not consider social "scientists", ie. political "scientists," > > > > > > sociologists, psychologists, etc. to be qualified to comment on issues > > > > > > regarding the hard sciences. > > > > > > Well, that is unwise of you. There are many issues "regarding th > > > > > hard sciences" that the hard scientists would be least qualified > > > > > to comment on. > > > > > 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 is a necessary part of a large > > > part of hypothesis testing and verification. > > > Just putting "hard" into quotes shows some dependency. > > > Has anyone even bothered to precisely define or list the differences > > between "hard" and "soft" sciences? > > Deals in the concept or falsifiability == hard. Like when the hacked Emails "falsified" everything put out by the E. Anglia CRU? > Deals in squishy > feelings == soft. Like creationism? Bret Cahill
From: krw on 13 Jul 2010 19:05 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:39:16 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > Or are you a conspiracy theorist who believes 98% of the scientists on >> >> > > > > > > the planet are in on a conspiracy? >> >> > > > > > That's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the >> >> > > > > > Earth. >> >> >> > > > > When did who believe that? >> >> >> > > > > Bret Cahill >> >> >> > > > Anyway, anyhow, anywhere /they/ chose. >> >> >> > > Please define "scientist." >> >> >> > Please don't. >> >> >> > > I do not consider social "scientists", ie. political "scientists," >> >> > > sociologists, psychologists, etc. to be qualified to comment on issues >> >> > > regarding the hard sciences. >> >> >> > Well, that is unwise of you. There are many issues "regarding th >> >> > hard sciences" that the hard scientists would be least qualified >> >> > to comment on. >> >> >> 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 is a necessary part of a large >> >part of hypothesis testing and verification. Hell hard science >> >requires grammar baby, and much more, else how would scientists even >> >explain anything, cept for deaf dumb and blind mathsheads who crunch >> >and get fat on numbers. >> >> Grammar is a science? � > >That's _his_ point. Language certainly isn't a hard science. It's not a "soft" science, either! <sheesh>
From: Immortalist on 13 Jul 2010 19:31
On Jul 13, 9:12 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Or are you a conspiracy theorist who believes 98% of the scientists on > > > > > > > > > the planet are in on a conspiracy? > > > > > > > > That's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the > > > > > > > > Earth. > > > > > > > > When did who believe that? > > > > > > > > Bret Cahill > > > > > > > Anyway, anyhow, anywhere /they/ chose. > > > > > > Please define "scientist." > > > > > Please don't. > > > > > > I do not consider social "scientists", ie. political "scientists," > > > > > sociologists, psychologists, etc. to be qualified to comment on issues > > > > > regarding the hard sciences. > > > > > Well, that is unwise of you. There are many issues "regarding th > > > > hard sciences" that the hard scientists would be least qualified > > > > to comment on. > > > > 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 is a necessary part of a large > > part of hypothesis testing and verification. > > Just putting "hard" into quotes shows some dependency. > I use quote marks to quote someone and sometimes to "spotlight" a phrase. I don't understand how your trying to turn my usage into "scare quotes". That usually only happens when someone is changing the definition of a term or something. Didn't your grammar ever warn you about that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes > Has anyone even bothered to precisely define or list the differences > between "hard" and "soft" sciences? > Its one of those distinctions so common and old that we forget that new people have to learn it also. Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms often used when comparing fields of academic research or scholarship, with hard meaning perceived as being more scientific, rigorous, or accurate. Fields of the natural or physical sciences are often described as hard, while the social sciences and similar fields are often described as soft. The hard sciences are characterized as relying on experimental, empirical, quantifiable data, relying on the scientific method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity. Publications in the hard sciences such as natural sciences make heavier use of graphs than soft sciences such as sociology, according to the graphism thesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science > I mentioned sig figs in "hard" vs epidemiological studies in "soft." > > Before Galileo there was no distinction. > > Some believe Galileo made science into a science. > > Bret Cahill |