Timeline for Does Math use the scientific method?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
42 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6 at 13:05 | answer | added | Mozibur Ullah | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 5 at 15:48 | comment | added | Julius Hamilton | Do you want ‘math’ capitalized to emphasize the concept? | |
| Apr 5 at 3:31 | history | edited | Pablo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body; edited title
|
| Apr 3 at 13:19 | history | edited | Julius Hamilton | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body; edited title
|
| Mar 19 at 20:13 | comment | added | Robbie Goodwin | Doesn't maths say that to prove something, you need to show three specific examples and then a general case? How does that not sit well with your view of 'the scientific method'? | |
| Mar 19 at 15:37 | vote | accept | Pablo | ||
| Mar 17 at 16:15 | answer | added | Mikhail Katz | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 15 at 17:20 | comment | added | That Realtor Programmer Guy | it most certainly, absolutely, does not use the scientific method in any way, shape or form. math is used in scientific research and math can be inspired by results of the scientific method. --- at least that's what I would like to say. but really it is all semantic. an equation is a test showing the hypothesis of some proof, that symbols can have the ascribed meaning. if the proof is consistent, then the test succeeds. | |
| Mar 15 at 14:23 | history | edited | Pablo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 390 characters in body
|
| Mar 15 at 14:16 | comment | added | Pablo | May be this issue should be tackled by branch of Mathematics, and I always had the feeling that there are branches of Mathematics that are essentially so different to others that not sure why they are all considered part of the same discipline | |
| Mar 15 at 14:14 | comment | added | Pablo | check this (spanish, but you can understand it by the pictures) "The simplest math demostration". At the end, when I see with my eyes the angles add to 180 degrees, how isnt that an empirical comprobation? es.quora.com/… | |
| Mar 15 at 14:04 | comment | added | Karl Knechtel | "However, you also find things like" - I don't understand. You present this other quote as if it rebuts or argues against the first two. But it does not; they are all on the same side. "Using trial and error" is not remotely sufficient to establish use of the scientific method. | |
| Mar 15 at 0:03 | answer | added | R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 14 at 20:16 | answer | added | Daniel Asimov | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 14 at 18:38 | answer | added | Addlai | timeline score: 11 | |
| Mar 14 at 18:07 | comment | added | RBarryYoung | Science is an empirical discipline (arguably, the empirical discipline), whereas mathematics is a logical discipline. "Empirical" is NOT "logical", they are contrasting processes. So NO, theoretical mathematics does not employ the scientific method because mathematics is not a Science (it is technically a type of philosophy). Applied mathematics is a different matter, because it straddles the divide between the two. | |
| Mar 14 at 17:40 | answer | added | JimmyJames | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 14 at 14:48 | history | edited | Pablo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 367 characters in body
|
| Mar 14 at 11:01 | answer | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | timeline score: 5 | |
| S Mar 14 at 9:11 | history | suggested | CommunityBot | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
located correct first link, reformatted quotes
|
| Mar 14 at 8:09 | answer | added | vmhung | timeline score: 12 | |
| Mar 14 at 3:25 | answer | added | Hudjefa | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 14 at 3:24 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 14 at 9:11 | |||||
| Mar 14 at 2:33 | comment | added | Michael Carey | basically, every theorem that doesnt lead to a contradiction is a piece of suggestive, data that math isnt inconsistent. So, we can treat theorems as scientific experiments testing the consistency of mathematics. Its even a potentially falsifiable theory... as it is conceivable that a contradiction could be found, if math is incomsostent | |
| Mar 14 at 2:29 | comment | added | Michael Carey | Yes, the entire idea that Mathematics is a viable field is a scientific conclusion- not a mathematical one. Mathematics cannot prove itself consistent- so in order to have that Mathematical Results aren't incoherent nonsense, we must use scientific principles to say- we think math is consistent, because we haveny found a contradiction yet, and the longer we look, and dont find anything the more sure we become | |
| Mar 14 at 1:29 | answer | added | Three Diag | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 14 at 1:18 | answer | added | Davislor | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 13 at 22:14 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Mar 13 at 21:07 | comment | added | Chris Degnen | "mathematics itself is only a particular formation of the mathematical" from Heidegger's Modern Science, Metaphysics & Mathematics | |
| Mar 13 at 20:38 | answer | added | Dan Christensen | timeline score: -2 | |
| Mar 13 at 19:52 | answer | added | mond | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 13 at 17:11 | comment | added | SystemTheory | No. Scientific measurements require the capacity to comprehend and apply math models in the context of sensory-perceptions. Most math models in physics, chemistry, engineering, and the quasi-scientific or psuedo-scientific field of economics are best characterized as stock-flow consistent (SFC) models. The term SFC is associated with the economist Wynne Godley's use of balance sheet equations in the macroeconomic financial accounting context. But filling up a bathtub with water from a source with a sink (drain) is an SFC model for the water in the tub. We use integral & differential equations. | |
| Mar 13 at 16:45 | answer | added | Idiosyncratic Soul | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 13 at 16:36 | answer | added | TKoL | timeline score: 27 | |
| Mar 13 at 15:37 | answer | added | J D | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 13 at 15:28 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | At the same time, "mathematics is the queen of science (C.F.Gauss)"; thus scientific method is not all in science. | |
| Mar 13 at 15:20 | comment | added | Johan | This is an interesting question which is not as easy at it may look. For example, the two very quick answers which have been posted are based on the axiomatic and inductive construction of mathematics, failing to observe that the mathematical practice (that is, maths as practised by mathematicians) is widely different from its logical formalization. Nobody works inductively from the axioms of ZFC but rather with some kind of trial and error which, as TKoL observes, may be akin to experimenting. This an idea that Cavaillès developed in "La pensée mathématique"—I'll try to write an answer. | |
| Mar 13 at 15:11 | comment | added | TKoL | I think observation and experiment actually ARE part of math, and central to many mathematical discoveries. @MauroALLEGRANZA | |
| Mar 13 at 15:01 | answer | added | RodolfoAP | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 13 at 14:59 | answer | added | Jo Wehler | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 13 at 14:18 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | Scientific Method is quite a broad concept, but observation and experiment are essential to it. | |
| Mar 13 at 14:13 | history | asked | Pablo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |