Just for Matt; Fascinating Math (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, March 30, 2012, 22:21 (4621 days ago) @ David Turell

Natural Scientists (like the two you mention) are *driven* by observation. Science isn't about truth, its about model building, and building robust models.
> 
> Just like string theory. Very pretty math and no proofs by observation. Robust! Ha!-Explain to me how the theory of acceleration is more than a model? I dare you. String theory is out. No physicist of note I've heard of has ever said that String theory IS reality nor failed to admit that there is no current way to test it.-The word "proof" is pointless in science. (It's the ONLY word of note for mathematicians.) I've come to a recent conclusion that the entire idea of "truth" is meaningless in science. You see a phenomenon, you create a model that explains it, and the life or death of the model is its ability to accurately predict events in the real world. -We should be on the same page here. For most people, the fact that a model accurately reflects reality is "truth" but since we admit that science never ends, then we can never truly say that we've arrived at "truth." Only "what's true given known observations." -None of this should really be "new hat" but I've had recent conversations elsewhere where this exact topic has come up. -If you have a scientific mindset, you gave up on the idea of "truth" a long, long time ago.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"