From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 00:33:31 MST
gts writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> > "Development of Western science is based on two
> > great achievements: the invention of the formal
> > logical system (in Euclidean geometry) by the
> > Greek philosophers, and the discovery of the
> > possibility to find out causal relationships by
> > systematic experiment (during the Renaissance)."
> >
> > -Albert Einstein
> >
> > Claim: formal logic played no part in the development of
> > Western science. (Einstein was mistaken.)
>
> I think Einstein was speaking pragmatically. I would paraphrase his
> statement thusly:
>
> "Scientific progress has depended upon two things: 1) formal logic,
> especially mathematics, and 2) the philosophy of empiricism."
Well, I'd still take out the word "formal". My whole point
was that formal logic is merely an abstract codification of
logic. Most logical activity (by someone building a steam-
engine, for example, takes place with no formal component at
all.
> Empiricism without mathematical formalism leads to nothing
> practical; empirical data must be used ultimately to make
> some kind of mathematically precise predictions about the
> future.
Well, it seems to me that while your statement is true
in a majority of cases, there are far too many exceptions
for such a generality. Consider Darwin's work alone:
exceedingly empirical, but so far as I know, entirely
without mathematics. And he's considered by many, including
me, to be the greatest scientist of all time.
> Likewise, formal logic (pure math) is useless until it is
> applied to real world problems.
Yes.
> The science of astronomy is a good example. The development of this
> science has depended on the formal logic of Euclid (one cannot so much
> as build a simple telescope without an understanding of geometry),
Yes, that's the way that it happened in the west. Now, I don't
know enough about Islamic glass-making to say for sure, but it's
entirely credible that those particular Moslem experimenters did
not employ mathematics in their efforts. It's easy for me to
imagine that practiced opticians could have developed telescopes,
though certainly not of the quality achieved by 1800 A.D.
> and the discoveries of astronomy have depended also on the
> philosophy of empiricism (the scientific method).
Without a doubt.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST