Joanna
Richard Harris wrote:
> 1) One frequently found modern myth is that:
> "One of the foundational myths of modern science ... is that
> "Mathematics is the language of nature and that, therefore, if you don't
> speak math, you can't do science." "
> You have to speak enough maths to understand the modelling process. A
> good example of the process is in a course description written by the
> Open University:
> 'An example of a problem that can be understood better through
> mathematical analysis is that of the injection of medication. A
> mathematical model can be constructed which predicts how the
> concentration of the medication in the blood changes with time after
> an injection. This model can then be used to answer such questions as:
> how often should a specified amount of medication be administered to
> be effective?
> how much medication should be given if the period between injections
> is specified?
> what happens if the medication is given intravenously?'
> If you can't do the maths you can't answer the questions. The best
> you can do is repeat what someone else says are the right answers. I
> think it is when you can't do the science that people slip in to the
> erroneous view that you can understand physics without understanding
> how physics relies upon many finely structured mathematical models of
> aspects of the world. That requires understanding what mathematical
> modelling is. No Royal Road.
>
>
> 2) "The Popperian theory of science as a Millean process of free
> inquiry ... is too optimistic."
> Of course, the Popperian theory of science is not a theory of how
> scientists undertake the practice of science or of scientific
> research. Kuhnians have done excellent work in the study of lab
> life. In the Logik der Forschung and other works Popper does use
> historical examples of what he later calls the process of conjecture
> and refutation. But historical examples are not relevant to his main
> points, which are how science is marked out from other human
> activities (the demarcation problem in his terminology), and an attack
> on induction as a means of justifying scientific conclusions.
> The first presentation of Popper's ideas had a number of weaknesses,
> some of which he came to acknowledge (for example, the claim that the
> conclusions of science come closer and closer to the truth, outlined
> in Conjectures and Refutations, was rigorously refuted by David
> Miller, who had been one of Popper's PhD students.)
> William Bartley III and David Miller (in his book Critical
> Rationalism) have interestingly reformulated Popper's ideas.
> An interesting paper of Miller's is here:
> http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/staff/miller/dm_control.pdf
> Richard
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>