Who is the greatest scientist in the last 500 years?

[Ramo]

I wouldnt call them opposite at all. They're different in that initial belief vs assumption , but similarly different from science since they are both non-testable by physical observation.

Not at all. Science has much more in common with religion as science relies on beliefs just as religion does. Math is distinct in that it relies on no beliefs.

It seems to me that your separation of math and physics is an arbitrary one. I appreciate the distinction that physics may take math into a physical realm (hence my description of physics as applied mathematics). Your point was that a mathematical theorum wasnt testable by observation and was therefore not science. My problem with that is how one would know for sure when writing a theorum that it's testable (and therefore physics) or not (and therefore math).

If a theory makes predictions on the physical world, it is testable. Math never does.

You look back in time and say that Einstein knew that his work would be testable, but I ask how did he know that?

GR made predictions on how the physical world should work. Hence it was testable.

Did Schroedinger know that someone would find a way to prove his theorum?

Huh? Which theorem?

Did he envision supercomputers and the scientific and engineering steps that allow these things to be tested?

Why did he need to?

Given this blurring between math and physics at the moment of a theorums conception how can you make a distinction in terms of science and non-science?

1. A theorem has a specific definition as a proven mathematical assertion. It isn't defined in a scientific context, AFAIK. A theory is an assertion that makes predictions on nature.
2. Physical theories certainly rely on mathematical theorems, but that doesn't make it math as physical theories by definition make predictions on the physical world. Math has no such qualifier.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
You have an interesting defense of Darwin considering some of the stuff he said about women, and the intelligence of women.

I wasn't making any support of his moral character or his feelings in such regard. Objectively, I think it's indisputable that his work did a great deal to further modern science.

I find the above statement fairly ironic anyway, considering your own citing of James Dobson as a man you think is morally wonderful. He did, after all, say that women were just looking for a man to take charge of their lives...

[Ben Kenobi]

Objectively, I think it's indisputable that his work did a great deal to further modern science.

I don't dispute this either.

However, Boris- you defended Darwin by saying that he did not intend to show black people as inferior, and that others misused his theories through Social Darwinism.

How did these people misuse his theory? Can you elaborate on your theory?

As for Dr. Dobson, I merely contended that his faults were less then the other celebrities presented. I agree with Christians who say that men and women have different roles in the home, but not that those roles restrict the woman to the home.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
I don't dispute this either.

However, Boris- you defended Darwin by saying that he did not intend to show black people as inferior, and that others misused his theories through Social Darwinism.

How did these people misuse his theory? Can you elaborate on your theory?

I've read nothing about Darwin that demonstrates is intentions were sociological in nature. I have no doubts that, being a Victorian gentleman, he was a product of his times and most likely held traditional views of the sexes and races. I don't see how that relates to his scientific endeavors. His primary goal was in presenting what he believed to be the truth about human evolution.

Had Origin of the Species been a political book that, as its primary focus, tried to establish a sociological justification for racism, you'd have a point. But it doesn't, so there is none.

[Ramo]

Quit dissing biology, nature is #1.

Yes, after all it's not like physics is natural or anything like that.

[Rogan Josh]

Ramo's discussion of maths and physics reminds me of some of the arguments I have witnessed about string theory - is it maths or physics? (Usually these arguments were about who should fund the string theorists of course.)

The problem is that String Theory will not be testable for generations. It is so far beyond the energy reach of anything we can build that we won't see string dynamics in the lab any-time soon. Also, there is a theorem about factorisation of physics scales which says that whatever theory there is up at the string scale it will have no (direct) effect on the physics we can study experimentally at modern colliders. Some people claim that this implies that string theory is just maths.

On the other hand, string theorists are studying interactions which presumably would happen if we could build big enough colliders, and which presumably did happen back in the first 10^-50 seconds (or whatever) of the universe's life. If we could directly test the string theories on the market I am sure 99.9% of them would be wrong, but does that make them maths and not physics?

[KrazyHorse]

As long as it would be theoretically testable at some point with some physically possible equipment it's physics.

Coming up with untestable theories (in that they predict the same results in all situations as current theories) is mathematics. Arguing over the relative merits of the theories thus obtained is metaphysics.

[TheStinger]

I can test if 1+1=2
If i have 1 orange and then get another orange i have 2 oranges

[KrazyHorse]

Somebody needs an epistemology lesson...

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Frogger
Somebody needs an epistemology lesson...

If I knew what it was I'd go

I dropped economics at uni because the maths was too hard

[MRT144]

epistimology, the study of knowledge.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by MRT144
epistimology, the study of knowledge.

I guess that makes me pretty stupid

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Ramo's discussion of maths and physics reminds me of some of the arguments I have witnessed about string theory - is it maths or physics? (Usually these arguments were about who should fund the string theorists of course.)

The problem is that String Theory will not be testable for generations. It is so far beyond the energy reach of anything we can build that we won't see string dynamics in the lab any-time soon. Also, there is a theorem about factorisation of physics scales which says that whatever theory there is up at the string scale it will have no (direct) effect on the physics we can study experimentally at modern colliders. Some people claim that this implies that string theory is just maths.

On the other hand, string theorists are studying interactions which presumably would happen if we could build big enough colliders, and which presumably did happen back in the first 10^-50 seconds (or whatever) of the universe's life. If we could directly test the string theories on the market I am sure 99.9% of them would be wrong, but does that make them maths and not physics?

I'm not alone