Posted by
Nick Thompson on
Apr 26, 2009; 9:26pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/The-Unreasonable-Effectiveness-of-Mathematics-in-the-Natural-Sciences-tp2714601p2720120.html
Owen Densmore (to his shame) said:
My friend Nick to whom I addressed all this (we spar over the
importance of math) might claim that Math is not particularly
effective. Do you?
You slander me! I have NEVER NEVER NEVER CLAIMED that math is
ineffective. Nor have we EVER sparred over the importance of math,
because I have always been a flagrant math groupy. .
I ===>have<=== vigorously defended philosophy against your claims that it
never gets anywhere, but I dont see how that defense constitutes an attack
on math since I have also tended to believe that math is a formalization
and extension of the methods of philosophy. They stand or fall together.
You have --with just cause -- complained about the manner in which I treat
mathematical texts: I gnaw at them like a rat denied access to a food
cupboard. I nest in them like a mouse, first marking, then tearing their
pages into a paper froth of my own construction. I have no "natural
reverence." But, as you know, I read everything that way. The only way I
know to respect a text is to treat each word as thoroughly MEANT by the
author and demand of him and her that the words are consistantly used. What
is most tempting about mathematicians is their apparent committment to that
same very high standard.
As I indicated in my previous post, I share your amazement concerning the
discoveries of mathematics, but am less certain than you are, what sort of
discoveries they are.
All the best,
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (
[hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> [Original Message]
> From: Owen Densmore <
[hidden email]>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
[hidden email]>
> Date: 4/26/2009 1:32:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in
theNatural Sciences
>
> On Apr 26, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:13 -0600, "Owen Densmore" <
[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I'm completely of Tegmark's ilk:
> >
> > I assume that means you would also adhere to the sentiment
> > attributed to
> > Einstein:
> > "How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of
> > human
> > thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably
> > appropriate to the objects of reality?" Which contains the
> > fallacy, "independent of experience."
>
> Well, if Al agrees, I'm OK being in his camp! Phooey on your fallacy.
>
> > Thought - and mathematics! - is but a refined metaphor of experience.
> > (following Lakoff)
>
> Fine. But none the less, why is it that the subject line is so
> enigmatically true? .. why do we observe: The Unreasonable
> Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences?
>
> I presume you'd say that experience weld Science and Math together.
> So? That does not negate the wonder of The Unreasonable Effectiveness.
>
> My friend Nick to whom I addressed all this (we spar over the
> importance of math) might claim that Math is not particularly
> effective. Do you?
>
> -- Owen
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org