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: Immortalist on 15 Jul 2010 20:30 On Jul 15, 5:15 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <2a28baaf-ec1f-46b7-b58c-e7bf49414...(a)t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Immortalist <reanimater_2...(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. You missed the point. Peer-review groups and other communitarian aspects of the global scientific community must use social science - soft science. The methodology is either hard science or soft science. It is soft science, social science. This is only one example of how the science community depends upon social science to communicate an prove research.
From: spudnik on 15 Jul 2010 20:36 how about this (sorry, couldn't excerpt the PDF): http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Translations/Kepler_Aristotle.pdf > What do you mean about getting book learning? thus: anyway, this is the sum-total of the Bush and Obama policy for energy, which should be called, Free-er Trade, although referred to as Captain Tax by Murdoch's Climategateways, the WSurinal etc.... surely, it'll work, as apparently Waxman's bill of '91 worked for acid rain; so, Where's the beef on that? the OP's citation seems to assume that cap&trade is the way to go, whereas I have at least two sources that admitted that good effect could be achieved by an actual, small, accountable tax on carbon, instead of this "free trade" nostrum, which is already huge in the USA (CCX and ICE e.g.; tens of bllions in hedging per year, since 2003 and 2005, repsectively), but dwarfed by the mandatory EU one. Waxman's bill, just like his '91 bill, just like Kyoto, presaged by Montreal, mandatorizes the voluntary system. however, the main problem is the incoming "reform" bill, which is a total sop to the derivatives freaks that causes the current blow-out. --the Queen of the sciences! http://wlym.com --les ducs d'oil! http://tarpley.net
From: John Stafford on 15 Jul 2010 21:54 In article <5507093c-d680-4dc8-b39b-8e38632beb9a(a)a4g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Immortalist <reanimater_2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > You miss the point. Peer-review groups are not guided by social science. > > You missed the point. Peer-review groups and other communitarian > aspects of the global scientific community must use social science - > soft science. Pathetic. They do not use any such thing. They appoint persons within their field to review the work - for better or worse, and in the case of mathematics it is critical to seek the very best. They do not pull out some tome or rules of social science to make their decision regarding the peers they choose. Get over it. You don't know what you are writing about.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 15 Jul 2010 22:46 On Jul 16, 9:40 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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=mcc comes from c(v=V1) = c(v=V2) which comes from an analytical bungle from the null results of the MMI experiment as opposed to c(v=V) = c(mu,ep) + V ... and as I have been showing recently Mother Nature supports this formula > > > > 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: Bret Cahill on 15 Jul 2010 23:55
> > > You miss the point. Peer-review groups are not guided by social science. > > > You missed the point. Peer-review groups and other communitarian > > aspects of the global scientific community must use social science - > > soft science. > > Pathetic. They do not use any such thing. They appoint persons within > their field to review the work - You don't think "hard" scientists can do "soft" science? Very often they are better at soft science than those who have studied soft science. The atom bomb guy was the first to try chemo therapy. > for better or worse, and in the case of > mathematics Math ain't a science. .. . . > They do not pull out some tome or rules of social science to make their > decision regarding the peers they choose. Why would that be necessary? Pavlov's dog could do a lot of "soft" science. Bret Cahill |