Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
Mark,
Scientific theory makes predictions not assumptions.
A theory stands or falls on the basis of evidence. A theory can be supported but not proved by evidence. Evidence however can disprove a theory.
There seems to an issue here regarding where mathematics ends and science begins.
When a theoretical physicist uses mathematics to develop a theory, the maths he uses is proven. This is what distinguishes maths from science. This doesn't however "prove" the theory.
The theory still has to be self consistent, and falsifiable (subject to observational and/or experimental evidence).
This puts it in the realm of physics not mathematics.
Regards
Steven
|
Yes Steven I agree we are moving towards that grey area. I should make myself clear here. My objection is not towards the mathematics involved far from it but rather the thin grey line itself. In my opinion and it is only my opinion for what its worth, too much emphasis is being placed on theories with little or no real evidence to back them up...to the point where people are starting to proclaim them irrefutable truths (and they will argue with gusto and venom against any other possibility). The universe is far too complex for such nonsence. We try to simplify everything so our feeble minds can attain some sense of comfort in knowing what is going on and back it up with "the maths tells us so". We as a species have so much to learn that we have yet to scratch the surface. The title of this thread states "No Life Is Possible" and how you decode that is a matter of semantics I guess. Sure Earth may be the only place in the Universe that life has evolved but then it may very well not be. No mathematical work no matter how elegant can give us an answer to that question. We simply need to get off our RS's and explore the universe which is easier said then done.
Mark