Turn on thread page Beta

The value of science vs. that of maths watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    No Maths-------> No science!

    that simple, all scineces are based on maths one way or another!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lucid87)
    Hence science's real search for the truth, hence science’s greater value??
    a subjective question, value to who?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KOH)
    No Maths-------> No science!

    that simple, all scineces are based on maths one way or another!
    But that doesn't mean that Maths is more important
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    I would disagree with the only in that first sentance, sometimes theorys do not replace old one in science, and work in conjunction with exsisting theories, the best example being Newton's laws and Ensteins theory of Relativity. I see your point, but I think the same thing can happen in science (hence the objection to only) tho I think as you say it happens to a lesser extent.
    Actually, I'm in agreement there. Just not the best phrasing on my account. I was just trying to get across that every past discovery in maths is still valid as it can be fundamentally proved whilst this is not always the case in the sciences as new theories can disprove old ones and replace them (but as your exaple showed, this does not automatically make old theories redundant, but this is more likely to happen in the other sciences).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lucid87)
    There are several interesting views on this matter... but
    a- if fundamental mathematical axioms are being redefined continuously, how can 'pure maths transcend into the realm of art' if it hasn't found its figurative brush
    Just like in art, there are different periods of mathematical creation. Most mathematicians will work inside the given rules or styles of thought for a prolonged period just like the periods in classical music (eg. from Baroque to the Romantic periods) but it takes someone special to come along and "redefine the canvas" as it were.

    (Original post by Lucid87)
    b- it seems as though maths attempts to bring absolutism and symmetry to everything it analyses and represents and it is thus continually wrong because to begin to make complete logical proofs without specific context, would mean that mathematicians are fully aware of every factor in existence- which they simply cannot be. Maths can only work with predefined boundaries e.g. with numerical data- the only real use for maths- and this can now be performed by computers.
    Part of the fun of applied maths is adapting or modelling the real world into a workable representation (be that by numbers, equations, matricies or graphs). Is it wrong to seek order in caos? Indeed, is this not what the other sciences regularly try to do? As for arguing that you cannot make complete logical proofs without specific context, the contexts are provided by the axioms of mathematics. If you agree to a logical set of rules beforehand, they are complete proofs under the system. As for knowing every factor in existance, how do you define a number? Is it an abstract object that exists in the physical world, or is it an entitiy created by human thought? Surely, if we have created the numerical system, then we know where we start from and everything in the physical world does not affect the result, so we do not need to know every factor in existance, as numbers are applied to the real world, but don't exist in it.

    For the last point, that computers render maths redundant, I'd partly agree. Compters are regularly used by mathematicians to save them having to repeat the same calculation many many times. However, the computer needs to know the question to give you the answer. Computers are also incapable of working precisely. Computers cannot even represent the square root of 2 completely (as a decimal approximation must be used). Numerical methods to solve equations are always rendered imprecise when an algebraic solution can be found (although sometimes a numberical approach is the only possible way). Computers are a great tool for mathematicians, but they are currently nowhere near replacing them. If such a computer came into existance that could think in such a way, then it is just as arguable that a computer could replace scientists and economists (just like mathematical models have replaced weather forecasters).


    (Original post by Lucid87)
    c- on the other hand, aren't most scientific hypotheses rooted in experimental (empirical) evidence and are constantly qualified (i.e. crudely with ‘if’ or ‘but’- without declaring absolutism). They are also split into sub disciplines e.g. physics, biology- each with different principles instead of trying to tie ends that aren't there together.
    Hence science's real search for the truth, hence science’s greater value??
    How can science search for the "real truth" work if the three disciplines cannot agree on the same things? For the "complete truth" to be found, surely the three branches must have to agree. There is a danger that specialisation can become isolationism. Some of the best concepts in mathematics have come when a problem which could definately be classified as one branch of mathematics is solved by an approach from another seemingly incompatable section.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting points. To be honest, science and maths are equally important, aren't they? As is continually argued - no maths = no science and no science = useless maths. Simple. As for maths being art, I agree. There is no end to maths or science - how can anyone know where the end is? Or that anything found is useless? Again a point that has already been made! And hey, I'm personally confused on my views with maths cus I never did like maths! And I'm passionate about art, and I enjoy science. I'm still trying to decide if I like maths......... But maths in school is without context and is pretty pointless! But I'm not sure anything can ever replace maths - I won't say it's a science. It's not. Maths is a subject in its own right. It can even be fun, surprisingly enough - this is coming from someone who has always hated maths! Maths is more or less proven in every case, and so more solid than science, while science has far more variation, and that's why I prefer science, but without the solid grounding of maths, no science can be applied! To argue which is more important is quite pointless you know - it's a bit like saying is psychology more important than neuroscience - they are linked!!!!!!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PS - my art coming into play here. You could say maths is the skeleton and science is the flesh - the flesh goes pretty floppy and useless without the bones! The bones alone though can do much - it can't move without the muscles! The freedom of science and maths comes when both works alongside each other and they do in perfect harmony - so why bother tyring to split it? When studying, fine, split it - when applying, you cannot possibly split the two cus one is useless without the other!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by polthegael)

    My arguement, therefore, is that there is therefore no real difference between science and maths and this question is, therefore, redundant!
    I agree - Maths is a science. It's what all other science can be eventually reduced to. eg some quatum mechanics is based purely on maths (i think - not completely au fait with this but i read it sumwhere) - some quantum mechanics can only be predicted by mathematical knowledge, like statistics.

    So maths is the base. But thats not to say its more important. There would be no point to maths if we weren't applying it, so it's the rest of science that gives maths its meaning.
    And reducing everything solely to maths leaves out intervening factors which are impossible to account for and describe in just mathematical terms, and doesn't help understanding at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by irisng)
    The freedom of science and maths comes when both works alongside each other and they do in perfect harmony - so why bother tyring to split it? When studying, fine, split it - when applying, you cannot possibly split the two cus one is useless without the other!
    Precise-amondo dude!
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.