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: Arindam Banerjee on 15 Jul 2010 19:31 On Jul 16, 3:13 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > a-hem; ** yours, bro, two. and, no; > it certainly is far from better. > > mister Banerjee cannot take any criticism, gotta understand it first. such > as to bother to look anything up that is not immediately adjacent > to him in a googolplex or wookypoopeya search; there you go oh, well, or > even that, I suppose. > > but, what does his formula, mean -- > e=mVV(N-k)N? (not "sumorial" .-) has been around for a while, in hundreds of posts, since 2000 AD. None so blind as those who won't see. Still, you got a point, and I will put all that up in my domain website, as I promised to Straydoggie. Will do that, soon. > > > Having him post here is better than having him out on the street. > > --les ducs d'oil!http://tarpley.net > > --forsooth, the Queen of the quadrivium!http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 15 Jul 2010 19:40 OK, anyone can see that it is Liebniz's *vis viva*, which got rid of Galileo's notion, I think ... except for the N and the k factors (and I forgot the factor of a half). anyway, isn't that where e=mcc, comes from? > > e=mVV(N-k)N? (not "sumorial" .-) > will put all that up in my domain website, as I promised to --the Queen of the sciences! http://wlym.com --les ducs d'oil! http://tarpley.net
From: Immortalist on 15 Jul 2010 19:56 On Jul 15, 6:10 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <09169636-eef7-45df-aac6-3d64b9649...(a)u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > > Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Actually peer review was only one of many examples of how hard science > > depends upon soft science. Whether I can convince you or not that peer > > review is social science doesn't do much to my original argument. > > You may call the method by which you study peer review as a social > science, but that does not mean that peer review is a social science, > nor does it mean that peer review is guided by principles of social > science. Peer review can be as idiosyncratic as the discipline. > > In mathematics the outcome of peer review is quite different from very > many disciplines. There is no room for interpretation, conjecture, > philosophy, or soft-sciences of any kind. > > As I wrote, you may employ social science to study peer review, but peer > review is not social science, nor does it look to social sciences for > its performance, organization or method. > > The map is not the territory. I am not talking about some map. I am claiming that the methodology is either hard or soft science. I am claiming that the actual formulation of peer review methods are social science not hard science. I sustain my claim, with some evidence, that peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance, and provide credibility, and these methods a soft social science not hard physical science. Peer review is a generic term that is used to describe a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals with the related field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
From: Immortalist on 15 Jul 2010 19:59 On Jul 15, 8:21 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. > > > > The issue wasn't _your_ use of quotes but just about everyone putting > > > those terms into quotes, and for good reason. > > > > . . . > > > > The only thing the wiki article below got right was hard science has > > > more sig figs. > > > > > > 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, > > > > A more "scientific science" . . . > > > > That reasoning goes in a circular circle. > > > > What the author should have said is hard science uses more explicit > > > calculations . . . that it is more _quantitative_. > > > > > rigorous, > > > > Right now there are some physicists laughing at that one. > > > > > or accurate. > > > > As stated before, more sig figs. > > > > > Fields of the natural or physical sciences are often described as > > > > hard, while the social sciences and similar fields are often described > > > > as soft. > > > > Examples ain't definitions or qualities. > > > > > The hard sciences are characterized as relying on > > > > experimental, empirical, > > > > Hard sciences are more theoretical and therefore _less_ experimental > > > than "soft" sciences. > > > > The most important "hard" science paper of the 20th Century required > > > no lab work. > > > > Those meta studies in JAMA. . . there's your soft science. > > > > > quantifiable > > > > See the header and below. Before Galileo everything was treated as a > > > soft science. > > > > > 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. > > > > That should be true but it's probably not. For one thing any idiot > > > can make a graph out of anything. > > > > >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 > > > > "The value of a calculation to humanity is inversely proportional to > > > the number of possible sig figs." > > > > -- Bret's First Law of Tweaking > > > Embarrassing > > You wouldn't be so embarrassed if you got a Pell Grant and got some > book larnin'. > Can you explain yourself a little more clearly? What do you mean about getting book learning? > Bret Cahill
From: John Stafford on 15 Jul 2010 20:15
In article <2a28baaf-ec1f-46b7-b58c-e7bf49414f16(a)t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Immortalist <reanimater_2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 15, 6:10�am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > In article > > <09169636-eef7-45df-aac6-3d64b9649...(a)u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > > > > �Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Actually peer review was only one of many examples of how hard science > > > depends upon soft science. Whether I can convince you or not that peer > > > review is social science doesn't do much to my original argument. > > > > You may call the method by which you study peer review as a social > > science, but that does not mean that peer review is a social science, > > nor does it mean that peer review is guided by principles of social > > science. Peer review can be as idiosyncratic as the discipline. > > > > In mathematics the outcome of peer review is quite different from very > > many disciplines. There is no room for interpretation, conjecture, > > philosophy, or soft-sciences of any kind. > > > > As I wrote, you may employ social science to study peer review, but peer > > review is not social science, nor does it look to social sciences for > > its performance, organization or method. > > > > The map is not the territory. > > I am not talking about some map. I am claiming that the methodology is > either hard or soft science. I am claiming that the actual formulation > of peer review methods are social science not hard science. You miss the point. Peer-review groups are not guided by social science. |