It is more true that a *universal statement* can't be proven, such as "all life came from evolution". You can prove specifics, such as general relativity tracks satellites to the accuracy of the instruments or Bible is corroborated by history. Even if a unified field theory is better, GR remains accurate for given uses and time shearing + other phenomena in GR still exist. The light appears to be slowing down--but you you don't toss GR--you just gradually decrement the constant ;) for light.
You are looking from the wrong perspective: The only thing we know for sure is the evidence, the data, what we can observe. Only this do we know is true. This evidence is not proof of any given theory, instead the evidence is a test we use to see if a theory is false. The Scientific perspective on evolution is that there is yet no evidence to disprove it.
In science, there are no theories that have been proven; only theories that have yet to be disproven.
Through it all, math and science, we use logic to assert the validity of out observations and our postulates and inferences from them.
But what is logic besides an instinctual, irrational confidence that has evolved as an inherent quality of the human mind?
Logic cannot be proven, either. It cannot be used to prove itself, nor does any tangible evidence exist supporting it. Where did it come from, and how can we be sure our logic is the right logic?
You know what is funny is that science collects data, as you said, via experimentation and measurements. But that data is analyzed with statistics and other mathematics. So here we have a meshing of an inconclusive science with math that by its very nature hasnt been proven to describe the real world. A practically useless subject describing a subject that cannot be fully understood. I just thought it was ironic.
Ironically, your ideas sound less mathematical and scientific than philosophical. You're really explaining how and why we know certain kinds of knowledge as opposed to how either of these is different. If you are explaining differences, they are a bit narrow and need to be clarified. Both fields are so expansive and varied that to make such a strict dichotomy leaves little room for either to move around in each field's various possibilities.
It shouldn't make you angry, it should motivate you to conceive of experiments that indicate what properties the world has in which we live.
VitalSigns1, being angry is irrelevant here -- unless you (1) have and (2) are able to communicate to us a better understanding of physical reality than Prepoceros.
Is Science really differs from math by being a physical entity ? Is there really something in this world that is independent of our preception of the world it self? It is hard to talk about pure "theories" that are a manifestation of some "true" if this "true" is defined by us.
I certainly agree with you on the fundamental divide between math and science, but given the relative frequency in which I personally uncover errors in published papers, I wonder how many very subtle points of logic get missed.
The counterargument is that a "false" proof wasn't a proof at all, but there is no infallible judge, no 100% method to ascertain correctness with the mountains of lemmas and theorems we've built up. We are a ways from decomposing the most basic modern theorems into pure logical components, leaving aside the question of who we could trust completely to check them (some logicians work "backwards" in fields like Reverse Mathematics, but they are vastly outnumbered).
Theoretically mathematics is different from science in the way you outlined, but when practiced in any meaningful sense it becomes a science of majority acceptance involving personal scales of reasonableness and sense. If you simply declare false proofs to not belong to the realm of mathematics tautologically, why not declare that incorrect scientific theories don't belong to the realm of science? Either way nobody's doing actual math or science, just our best approximations of them.
Just as a thought experiement, how could you blur the line between provable mathematics and emprical science? Perhaps, if there is a god, they are one in the same to him. He creates the laws and works them out. His "scientific laws" would be provable to him. If we could get outside the universe and somehow see it as a whole...
So the difference between math and science is epistemological not metaphysical. Determined by the knowledge we can attain from it and not from it's nature or "ontological status." I would like a metaphysical definition. For instance, "mathematics is that which begins with axioms from which theorems are derived." But this is unsatisfactory because we can imagine "science" operating this way given that the scientist is 100% certain of his correctness.
So is it 1. that the definitive definition of science INCLUDES the condition {that you can not be 100% certain of its correctness}... or is it 2. that the definitive definition of science IMPLIES the condition {that you can not be 100% certain of its correctness}.
I would say neither...which I guess means I shouldn't have said "that's not science." I meant "that's not possible."
The idea that you can never be 100% certain of a statement about the physical world seems to me to be part of philosophy, not science. It's neither included in nor implied by the definition of science; it's true way before anyone thinks of doing or defining science.
I am VERY sorry I missed out on being a part of the very interesting and lively conversation that took place when you originally posted this video. Very nicely done from an epistemological perspective; done with great humor and charm.
OK, nice explanation. I was just messin with ya earlier. I learned something, bein a mostly math guy, what if you assigned variables to physical objects of a scientific nature and solved it using Aristotle's laws of logic?
:D , wanna see you prove riemann's hypothisis , come on , you know everything.
4. "in math , no one can come and disprove your theory" .
lets see , 3 is a prime , 5 is a prime and 7 is a prime. by using induction , every odd number greater than 2 , is prime. now comes a fifth grader and says "but 9 isn't prime" , ohhhh , theory disproven .
3. Very funny -- I assume you're joking, but in case you aren't, knowing all the axioms of a system is not the same thing as being able to prove any theorem of that system in five minutes.
4. No one can disprove your theorem (note the spelling) IF YOUR PROOF IS CORRECT TO BEGIN WITH. Yours isn't -- that's not how induction works.
3. let me simplify. You created the number system for a specific purpose, as you were creating it , you didn't grasp the implications of your logic.
Another person comes and observes some of those implications and creates a statement about their effects. repeat that for a few thousand years and you have the history of math. Numbers have a nature, and to this day people are still experimenting with it.
Now if you knew all the implications of your creation, there will be no problems in stating the nature of primes , which is the object of the Riemann's hypothesis.
When I said we know "everything" about a mathematical system in the video, I meant we know the axioms and the rules of inference, because we have defined them. We don't know all the implications -- if we did, mathematicians would have nothing to do all day.
if you define more than one axiom concerning one object, then the second one has to abide by the logic of the first. so the second axiom is actually driven from the first , which means that it was "implied".
the logic of the first axiom was driven from facts in nature , and to avoid a long explaination , im just gonna say that since the only source of your knowledge is the world around you , then it had to be the reason for anything you have created.
now since the first axiom is driven from nature , and we don't know everything about nature , then you couldn't possibly be able to predict all the implications of that axiom (which are the other axioms).
The axioms are inspired by nature, not driven from it. We come up with axioms that look like they might describe the world around us, but as mathematical statements they are *independent* of the real world.
We could just as easily come up with axioms that *don't* match what we see in nature, and they would be just as good, mathematically speaking.
Ok, now I see what you were saying. Then you and I are talking about completely different things.
I think the misunderstanding hinges on the words 'theory' and 'theorem.' 'Theory' is more of a science-y word. To describe a guess, an observation of a pattern that may or may not continue, a mathematician would use the word 'conjecture.'
Conjectures are disproven all the time, and that's not a problem.
But I was talking about theorems that have been *proven*. Once something has been proven in math, it cannot be disproven, period. If a theorem could be proven and disproven simultaneously, the whole system would implode (seriously).
This is a fundamental difference between math and science, which was my whole point in the video. Both math and science can make guesses (theories/conjectures) about the objects they study, but only math can prove some of those guesses definitively, because only in math do we know all the rules and axioms.
a theorem can be disproven by noticing other aspects of the subject that the writer could have missed , tho his intial proof can apply to some cases , it wouldn't for others .
No, see above. If a theorem is disproven, any earlier "proofs" must have contained mistakes and must therefore not really have been proofs in the first place.
No, this is not how mathematical proof works. Although mathematicians do often look for patterns, the observation of a pattern does not constitute a proof. Proofs in math are derived from basic principles (axioms) by rules of inference. Once a theorem has been proven, it cannot be disproven.
In physics, say, for which we don't know the basic principles, most of the work IS done by noticing patterns and generalizing, but this is NOT proof.
from that you can conclude more arithmatic axioms , using earlier axioms , that you deriven from other axioms , which you concluded from observation .
2. "you have axioms , and from there you use logic" , "they make axioms up".
what is logic made of , green eggs ???. an example of an axiom is A=A. in sense of quantity , a black sheep is equal in quantity to a white sheep , so wanting to communicate the idea of equality , you create the "=" sign , and place two sheeps at both ends (logic based on philisophical axioms).
as opposed to your "thing might change" theory , gravity has empirical data to support it and much more physical reasoning; also based on years of emperical finidings. your theory is self contradicitve , if you can't prove something , then you can't prove "not ever being able to prove something" , and that's a proof right here.
1. "what if with a better clock the ball rolls in 4.00000001 seconds (i.e. 4 + epsilon) "
what if the next time you the ball doesn't roll , the ball rolls in that time for a reason , you are creating your own theory (that the next time it will be diffrent for no logical reason) , and your saying it's final.
Yes, we've confirmed this law many many many times, and yes, every time we test it, we get the right numbers (assuming we don't make mistakes), but that does not constitute a proof, just very very strong evidence.
No scientist today (that I know of) expects this law to be overturned (and neither do I), but that's not the same as saying it's been proven. In particular, it is not *logically impossible* that this law will be contradicted someday. (2/2)
It's true that physics has such a law. But even if you take the law to include all the relevant circumstances (close to Earth's surface, no air resistance, within a certain error, etc.), that law STILL has not been proven the way math proves things. (1/2)
Things that haven't been proven. I think we can stick with the things that HAVE already survived scrutiny. You are hanging on the edge of top end information, these things provable are like addition, and subtraction. Being a physics minded individual, you leave out the facts about how things ARE proven. You left your speech as if the universe doesn't exist unless you can prove it, and math is the only way. Your rather pompous, and seek to demean I'm afraid.
Don't be afraid! She gives a rather balanced view; maths is definite, it can be proven but has nothing to do with reality, and is useless in itself (but fun!). However, in physics we can only verify knowledge, never prove knowledge. You might want to look at Karl Popper and what he said about deduction.
Wow, such brilliance! Vital...how disappointing you attack with nothing. If you know math, then put up or shut up. She is right and you cannot prove her wrong can you? No, you resort to "moron", your kettle is black.
This video is incredibly lucid. As a student of philosophy and theology, I am constantly frustrated by folks in my 'field' think they can prove things conclusively. Fundamentally, the reason for such confusions stems from Descartes philosophy I would wager.
Have you read " the rise of scientific philosophy" by my fav scientific philosopher Hans Reichenberg? good book. it pretty much tells us what you said and what we need to know about science and math.
Scientists do use it that way. Mathematicians don't. I guess if you want to argue semantics then that's how you go about it. If proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the available evidence then what I said is just confirmation. Proof still exists though.
It's like arguing the difference between theory in a scientific sense and theory in a legal sense.
You say scientists use it that way, I say they don't. There's a "discussion" that's going nowhere fast. =)
I don't know where I'd find support for my assertion (negative evidence is tough to come by), so I can agree to disagree. I think we're on the same page, anyway, apart from the words.
You can prove theories in science. If you make a theory and the experimental results agree within error then it's proved. The proof is open-ended and not definitive though.
Axioms are not just 'made up' either. They at least can't contradict themselves. You must adhere to basic logic. I 'm sure I could come up with a postulate that would create a universe where 4=7. However that is patently absurd since literally nothing in that universe is wrong.
You're using a different definition of proof than I am. When I say "proof," I mean absolute proof.
It's fine that we have different definitions, but it's important to note that scientists don't use the word "proof" the way you do. When experimental data agrees with a theory, scientists say the theory is "supported" or "confirmed," not "proven."
Yeah, I was being a bit flippant when I said axioms are "made up." I didn't mean that mathematicians aimlessly pull them out of thin air. You're right that a set of axioms which leads to a contradiction is no good.
What I meant by "made up" is that axioms don't require any proof or justification from the real world. They exist as abstract propositions, independent of any experiments or observations.
>>Now we know that for every case where gravity comes into play that objects fall toward the earth at 9.8 m/s^2.
For every case? No. The moon, for instance, does not fall toward the earth at 9.8m/s^2. It falls, for sure, but at a different acceleration. The "9.8 rule" only applies to objects close to the earth.
But I'll assume you knew that and were referring to Newton's more general Law of Universal Gravitation, from which that rule is derived. This law (like all laws of science) hasn't been proven, and in fact we've known it to be false for a hundred years, ever since the first good evidence for Einstein's theory of general relativity came in.
Calling something a law doesn't mean it's been proven, it means that it has stood up to many tests and been confirmed repeatedly. Even though Newtonian gravity has been shown to be wrong, we still teach it in schools because it's useful. For slow speeds and small masses, the numbers you get using the Newtonian law are not quite right, but they're close enough that it doesn't matter.
Science is constantly trying to disprove itself and overturn its own laws. That's why it's been able to make so much progress. If laws were proven absolutely, we might as well use physics textbooks from the 16th century (with edits for language). We don't, because in the meantime science has thrown out some of those laws and replaced them with better ones.
Infinity is more of an idea than a number. To say that something is infinite means that it has no finite size or number. For more information I recommend you check out websnarf's recent video about infinity -- he explains it in more detail.
You might as well say that there is a huge, mass-less, invisible, teapot in the middle of the universe. It is unobservable and therefore cannot be proven beyond doubt. So must we take into account the possibility of it existing? Of course not. Think about it before saying the Agnostic mantra (we can't dismiss the notion of god because we can't disprove it completely).
I don't know where you were heading with this argument that science is just probabilities. But if you are Agnostic, think about this: Is it fair to regard science and god both as "possible?" even though the probability of god existing is so small and the probability of so many fields in science being true is so huge?
About axioms, they are a bit precarious from a mathematician point of view. But they are intuitive. Because no matter how hard you try, two different lines will never go through the same two points (in a 3, linear, dimension world). And no matter how hard you try, two straight lines will never cross each other in more than one point.
You are right there is a chance of e-13 or something percent that math is, in fact, not true. But in real life, this is regarded as 0.
Exactly! It sounds as though you're rebutting my video, but I haven't made most of the claims you seem to think I have. I never said we should go about our daily lives worried that we don't know for sure that space is Euclidean. On human-sized scales of time and space, Euclidean geometry is either right or too close to matter.
The same thing goes with Euclidean Geometry. It is a model, not set to describe the entire universe, but a small part of it. And again, it works. People have used, and are using it in many areas, in real life.
Second, the views that were presented in your video are somewhat black and white, and rather childish. Of course math and science can't be proven completely. But before jumping into finding flaws, how about looking to what is the purpose of Science?
The purpose of science is to explain. It is simple as that. Take Quantum Physics for example;
I wasn't finding flaws. What part of the video made you think that?
IMO, the statement that science doesn't prove things absolutely is anything BUT black and white. Maybe I misunderstand -- were you referring to something else?
Yes, science's purpose is to explain, and it does an excellent job of it, better than any other tool we have.
First of all, you should really get your "science facts" straight. In Quantum Electrodynamics, a virtual photon with the right amplitude and go slower or faster than the speed of light, but this does not apply on real photons (AKA light).
Hi Prepocerus, Great video, very easy to understand. I'd like to know what you think of this statement: Science is a system for looking at the world and predicting unknowns based on knowns. Math is not "the real world" but only a model of the world based on rules which provide predictable results. Using calculations based on these rules we can arrive at results which science (up to this point) seems to confirm. Therefore, math is imperfect, but useful.
>>Science is a system for looking at the world and predicting unknowns based on knowns.
I can agree with that.
>>Math is not "the real world" but only a model of the world based on rules which provide predictable results.
I disagree. Math is not the real world, like you said, but it is also not a model of the real world. The rules we use in math are certainly motivated by rules that seem to hold in the real world, but the theorems that math proves are valid regardless of anything "real."
No. Math is perfect, in the sense that the theorems we prove with math are absolutely guaranteed to be correct. The "problem" arises from the fact that we don't know whether the assumptions we've made apply to the real world, but that's science's problem, not math's.
Science does use math and in fact couldn't exist (as we know it) without math. Science says, "Hey, here are some simple rules that look like they describe the observations I've made." Math takes those rules and says, "IF those are true, THEN these other things are true." Science goes off to test the other things, and on the basis of those tests it strengthens, revises, or discards its guesses at the rules. Rinse and repeat.
Yes, that's what I mean by math being imperfect, but certainly within itself it is perfect. As long as you stick to the rules, you're always correct. Thanks for clarifying all this, very interesting.
Hi Prepocerus, I loved this video, very easy to understand. I've always thought that a line should be drawn between math and science. What do you think of this definition:
Science is a system for predicting future events based on observing the world and deducing underlying principles. Math is a model of the natural world based on past observations, which is used to predict future events (with varying degrees of accuracy).
I would usually say math and science are branches of philosophy rather than philosophy is a science... what is fundimentaly different between what mathmatics requires as a proof and what philosophy requires as proof? both are essentually thought experiments ...
I was wondering what a mathematician's POV was on that one I have a friend who is a philosopher (PHD student) who gives me crap about science never being able to prove anything where as he got first class hons for proving he cant prove he exists... being a research geologist I can't even clame to many viable theories
That's a low blow completely uncalled for. Especially as it seems to me judging from your videos and other comments that you yourself don't understand science that well.
You should at least know the terms you are talking in. The juggling with words is a trait normally used by theists to evade argument ("evolution is just a theory"). So please, as you are someone who calls himself an atheist, stick to the scientific definitions so you wont cause even more confusion.
Hm, i´d say not almost but not quite. Of course we have our reasons to use the axioms that we do, and these sure are based in our observations from the real world. On the other hand, those observations cant be proven to be correct, a central point in this video. And because of this, our reasons to pick this group of axioms and not some other remains informal. In short, we made them up, for good reasons, but only from a human - not absolute - perspective.
This is more educational than an educational program. Most educational programs communicate narratives, histories, but outside of those, we rarely get good mental closures.
This was actually a question I've had turning in the back of my head for a while now and it was great to stumble apon the answer from you. Great video. Thanks.
The technicalities of this kinda lost me. But I agree in general. As an atheist, I like believing in science because it's adaptable and *strives* for truth more than achieves it; whereas religion is about the comfort of believing one rigid ancient truth.
Firstly I beleive your basci premise i.e. you cannot prove a theory absolutely, if you're talking physics. After all I can say "the sun will rise tomorrow" and when it does I've proved me theory. However if I say, as a physicist (sp?) would "it will rise at 5.35am" you can always argue that I was incorrect due to a lack of refinment in my equipment.
That is actually a kind of good example of what she was talking about. You say, "the sun will rise tomorrow", okay, it does tomorrow, that is not PROOF. that is EVIDENCE. Say you lived a long time ago, most people would agree that that is a proven fact. WRONG. That is exactly what she is talking about. The Sun does not rise at all, certainly not around the Earth anyways. The Earth is revolving around the Sun, so it is the Earth moving, not the Sun rising.
Thanks. I'm glad we can break this off cleanly -- I was beginning to fear it would devolve into sniping, haterism, and, eventually, Hitler references.
A comparison to Hermione? You flatter me. =P
No hard feelings here either. Guess I'll have to go take the pins out of my hardcase voodoo doll now. (kidding)
it`s the first time i see a female very near to my age and i can say for 100% sure that she`s smarter than me. Comment: no comment just Gauss, Bolyai Janos (Appendix) and some russian guy
Scientific laws generally have mounds of evidence behind them, but they can never be proven, not even in principle. QED is a beautiful theory with great predictive power, but no physicist would claim that it has been proven.
See DClaudeKatz's latest comment and my response for an explanation of why this does not render science futile. Although we can't know whether these laws are true, we know that, at the scales we care about, they're close enough approximations to be useful in building bridges, flying to the moon, and fighting disease.
You've now given "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" and QED as laws/theories that have been "proven." But QED says that light can travel faster than c (the "speed of light") -- a contradiction between two "proven" theories.
I don't expect this to fluster you, as you (I think) define scientific proof as non-absolute, but I think it's funny nonetheless.
As for making more math/science videos, please do. Your explination was much simpler and well put than my math teacher's attempt when I was still at school. As for a populiser of science I think you'd make a pretty good one, well at least better than my old teacher.
Thank you -- I think I might. This was one of the most enjoyable videos I've made. Ever since I started on YT I've been trying to figure out how to use what knowledge I have (math, science, teaching, language) in this new medium. This sort of thing might be it.
It's actually a round tablecloth my mom bought back in the 60s or 70s when she was living on her own. She hasn't used it in years, but I have a round table in my apartment, so she let me have it. I think it's fabulous.
Distinguish between theory as model and theory as possible fact. Criminal cases clearly deal with possible facts ("he stabbed her"). In my view, science deals with models rather than possible facts. In economics (my field), even most good theories are too ridiculous to be regarded as possible facts. But I see even physics as looking for "useful descriptions" rather than "pure truth."
Good point -- I touched on this briefly but ended up cutting it from the video.
If scientists were only interested in discovering the absolute truth, there'd be no point in doing science, since we admit that nothing is absolutely knowable.
Science aims in that direction, though, and the theories it creates along the way make useful predictions about the world.
NASA got their ships to the moon and back using the Newtonian theory of gravity -- they knew it was wrong, but it was close enough.
Strange that they use the word "theorems" like that.
I prefer this definition (the fourth in the online unabridged version):
"a judgment, conception, proposition, or formula (as relating to the nature, action, cause, or origin of a phenomenon or group of phenomena) formed by speculation or deduction or by abstraction and generalization from facts"
For me, you were (so) clear. In fact, I agree (I guess) with you completely (Math; Science). For example (basic), even in Set Theory, there are books with (slightly) different axioms; therefore, of course, the respective "sets" of theorems (assembled with mathematical logic; proof) are distincts. I don't understand some comments, I guess I'm stupid. Um abraço. [Oh] Bad English (above).
I guess you could be, say, a professor of mathematical linguistics who writes books (or makes videos!) for the general public. (Sounds like the graduate program could be rather painful, though.)
You seem to have an awfully good grasp of epistemology for someone who didn't even know she was talking about it.
And with the addition of "epistemology" to the tags, this video brings the search results for that term to an amazing...twenty-six. More than I expected.
Observation may not be the only factor, but it underlies all the others. Yes, science does extrapolate---that's how it comes up with its laws and principles, like the idea that the speed of light can't be exceeded---but those extrapolations are BASED ON observations. The accuracy of an extrapolation is limited by the observations on which it is based.
Yes, that is what I'm asserting. Whether or not you think it's ridiculous is irrelevant. If you want to talk about scientific theories, you have to play by science's rules.
It's just struck me that you might have been talking about evolution and gravity as theories of something BESIDES science. If that's the case, that's fine, but then I would not be interested in discussing this further, because I don't know what rules you're playing by.
Sure, there are scientific principles. Many people would call the Laws of Thermodynamics principles, for example. What I'm claiming is that none of them have been proven, by scientific standards.
Hmmm. M-W calls science a "branch...of systematized knowledge," and that definition applies to math as well.
Perhaps I should have used the terms "pure math" and "science besides math" (or just "physics," to narrow the discussion a bit).
The point remains that in pure math, there are no theories, only theorems. Physics has theories, but those theories cannot be proven because we don't *know* the basic principles of physics.
The main thing that prevents scientists from "proving" anything is their unwillingness to consider anything as being conclusively proven, by civilian standards of proof, a court of law for example, the "theory of gravity" has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, portions of it may continue to be fine tuned, but as I said the theory of gravity would be found guilty by a jury of being true.
The burden of scientific proof should be much higher than what would be use in most other fields, I'm not arguing that it is a bad thing, just pointing out that it is, historians for example have a much lower level of what would be considered proof, the existence of many historical figures are accepted as being true by historians, but would be considered barely acceptable hypotheses by scientists.
I think these differing standards of proof might be a big part of the confusion. The idea of proof in math (and science) is very rigorous, though in other fields we say something is proven when it's *very likely* to be true or *almost certainly* true.
A similar misunderstanding or intentional misrepresentation is common regarding the term agnostic, at least among believers, saying you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god is interpreted as meaning it is just as likely god exists as that he doesn't.
Does this mean, then, that it's logically consistent to be an agnostic atheist (holding that one cannot prove or disprove God's existence, but believing him not to exist) or an agnostic theist?
I consider myself an agnostic atheist, I would define my wife as an agnostic theist, since the likelihood of god existing is so remote a pure agnostic by default is much more of an atheist than a theist.
To my mind, theology is more like math than science, and probability is the wrong way to think about it. I am both a theist and an atheist, but I wouldn't call myself an agnostic. I believe in worshipping a God that doesn't exist, even (especially!) if He absolutely doesn't exist. I don't see this as any more nonsensical than believing in both Euclidean and Riemannian geometry.
Your intellectuality is attractive! ;)
linespermillimeter 3 years ago
Wow... My view of whether Mathemathics is invented or discovered has just become more clear... thx
thewildwilli 3 years ago
It is more true that a *universal statement* can't be proven, such as "all life came from evolution". You can prove specifics, such as general relativity tracks satellites to the accuracy of the instruments or Bible is corroborated by history. Even if a unified field theory is better, GR remains accurate for given uses and time shearing + other phenomena in GR still exist. The light appears to be slowing down--but you you don't toss GR--you just gradually decrement the constant ;) for light.
ProtoArmor 3 years ago
When you say a theory always remains a theory, I hope the evolutionists are listening.
seanmPWH 3 years ago
yes but's there's so much proof of evolution that the theory of evolution is almost impossible to disprove
frisianmouve 2 years ago
@frisianmouve
You are looking from the wrong perspective: The only thing we know for sure is the evidence, the data, what we can observe. Only this do we know is true. This evidence is not proof of any given theory, instead the evidence is a test we use to see if a theory is false. The Scientific perspective on evolution is that there is yet no evidence to disprove it.
In science, there are no theories that have been proven; only theories that have yet to be disproven.
Satarack 10 months ago
Through it all, math and science, we use logic to assert the validity of out observations and our postulates and inferences from them.
But what is logic besides an instinctual, irrational confidence that has evolved as an inherent quality of the human mind?
Logic cannot be proven, either. It cannot be used to prove itself, nor does any tangible evidence exist supporting it. Where did it come from, and how can we be sure our logic is the right logic?
We derived it with emotional confidence.
CogitoErgoCogitoSum 3 years ago
I've sometimes wondered about this myself. How do we know logic is "real" or means anything?
Prepoceros 3 years ago
I appreciated this video.
You know what is funny is that science collects data, as you said, via experimentation and measurements. But that data is analyzed with statistics and other mathematics. So here we have a meshing of an inconclusive science with math that by its very nature hasnt been proven to describe the real world. A practically useless subject describing a subject that cannot be fully understood. I just thought it was ironic.
CogitoErgoCogitoSum 3 years ago
Ironically, your ideas sound less mathematical and scientific than philosophical. You're really explaining how and why we know certain kinds of knowledge as opposed to how either of these is different. If you are explaining differences, they are a bit narrow and need to be clarified. Both fields are so expansive and varied that to make such a strict dichotomy leaves little room for either to move around in each field's various possibilities.
courtabeth 3 years ago
"which one of those actually describes the world we live in?....We don't know..." That made me a bit angry at your lack of understanding.
VitalSigns1 4 years ago
It shouldn't make you angry, it should motivate you to conceive of experiments that indicate what properties the world has in which we live.
VitalSigns1, being angry is irrelevant here -- unless you (1) have and (2) are able to communicate to us a better understanding of physical reality than Prepoceros.
leporidus 4 years ago
Great explanation of the true state of things. Truly great. Accurate.
dannykanoista 4 years ago
Is Science really differs from math by being a physical entity ? Is there really something in this world that is independent of our preception of the world it self? It is hard to talk about pure "theories" that are a manifestation of some "true" if this "true" is defined by us.
sufumato 4 years ago
Can theorems truly be proven?
I certainly agree with you on the fundamental divide between math and science, but given the relative frequency in which I personally uncover errors in published papers, I wonder how many very subtle points of logic get missed.
SageGaspar 4 years ago
The counterargument is that a "false" proof wasn't a proof at all, but there is no infallible judge, no 100% method to ascertain correctness with the mountains of lemmas and theorems we've built up. We are a ways from decomposing the most basic modern theorems into pure logical components, leaving aside the question of who we could trust completely to check them (some logicians work "backwards" in fields like Reverse Mathematics, but they are vastly outnumbered).
SageGaspar 4 years ago
Theoretically mathematics is different from science in the way you outlined, but when practiced in any meaningful sense it becomes a science of majority acceptance involving personal scales of reasonableness and sense. If you simply declare false proofs to not belong to the realm of mathematics tautologically, why not declare that incorrect scientific theories don't belong to the realm of science? Either way nobody's doing actual math or science, just our best approximations of them.
SageGaspar 4 years ago
Just as a thought experiement, how could you blur the line between provable mathematics and emprical science? Perhaps, if there is a god, they are one in the same to him. He creates the laws and works them out. His "scientific laws" would be provable to him. If we could get outside the universe and somehow see it as a whole...
earlyphilosophy 4 years ago
Well sure. If we knew the "axioms" of science, we could work things out the same way we do in math.
Prepoceros 4 years ago
So the difference between math and science is epistemological not metaphysical. Determined by the knowledge we can attain from it and not from it's nature or "ontological status." I would like a metaphysical definition. For instance, "mathematics is that which begins with axioms from which theorems are derived." But this is unsatisfactory because we can imagine "science" operating this way given that the scientist is 100% certain of his correctness.
earlyphilosophy 4 years ago
I don't understand. How would a scientist be 100% certain of his correctness? That's not science.
Prepoceros 4 years ago
So is it 1. that the definitive definition of science INCLUDES the condition {that you can not be 100% certain of its correctness}... or is it 2. that the definitive definition of science IMPLIES the condition {that you can not be 100% certain of its correctness}.
earlyphilosophy 4 years ago
I would say neither...which I guess means I shouldn't have said "that's not science." I meant "that's not possible."
The idea that you can never be 100% certain of a statement about the physical world seems to me to be part of philosophy, not science. It's neither included in nor implied by the definition of science; it's true way before anyone thinks of doing or defining science.
Prepoceros 4 years ago
these questions do belong to the philosophy of science and not science itself. i always liked popper.
earlyphilosophy 4 years ago
So the difference between math and science is reduced to a question of certainty. An epistemological question.
earlyphilosophy 4 years ago
I am VERY sorry I missed out on being a part of the very interesting and lively conversation that took place when you originally posted this video. Very nicely done from an epistemological perspective; done with great humor and charm.
tlg847 4 years ago
I think this was a really interesting vieo. I would like to see more of them.
xxx
FindAPenny 4 years ago
OK, nice explanation. I was just messin with ya earlier. I learned something, bein a mostly math guy, what if you assigned variables to physical objects of a scientific nature and solved it using Aristotle's laws of logic?
hollywodhack 4 years ago
I've never heard of Aristotle's laws of logic, but if they're really laws of *logic*, then by definition they can't be applied to physical objects.
Prepoceros 4 years ago
"since there is action without cause , there is no movement without a force" Aristotle
its logical and it also works for physical objects , so maybe nature is logical.
silverfox2000w345452 4 years ago
You say "it works for physical objects" as though that were obvious. Does it work every single time? How do you know?
Prepoceros 4 years ago
iam saying that for this specfic case , it applied .
so saying that "by definition" the laws of logic don't apply to physical objects , is not always true.
silverfox2000w345452 4 years ago
What specific case? You said "for physical objects."
Does it work for all physical objects? How do you know?
Prepoceros 4 years ago
3. "you know everything about math"
:D , wanna see you prove riemann's hypothisis , come on , you know everything.
4. "in math , no one can come and disprove your theory" .
lets see , 3 is a prime , 5 is a prime and 7 is a prime. by using induction , every odd number greater than 2 , is prime. now comes a fifth grader and says "but 9 isn't prime" , ohhhh , theory disproven .
silverfox2000w345452 4 years ago
3. Very funny -- I assume you're joking, but in case you aren't, knowing all the axioms of a system is not the same thing as being able to prove any theorem of that system in five minutes.
4. No one can disprove your theorem (note the spelling) IF YOUR PROOF IS CORRECT TO BEGIN WITH. Yours isn't -- that's not how induction works.
Prepoceros 4 years ago
3. let me simplify. You created the number system for a specific purpose, as you were creating it , you didn't grasp the implications of your logic.
Another person comes and observes some of those implications and creates a statement about their effects. repeat that for a few thousand years and you have the history of math. Numbers have a nature, and to this day people are still experimenting with it.
silverfox2000w345452 4 years ago
Now if you knew all the implications of your creation, there will be no problems in stating the nature of primes , which is the object of the Riemann's hypothesis.
silverfox2000w345452 4 years ago
When I said we know "everything" about a mathematical system in the video, I meant we know the axioms and the rules of inference, because we have defined them. We don't know all the implications -- if we did, mathematicians would have nothing to do all day.
Prepoceros 4 years ago
if you define more than one axiom concerning one object, then the second one has to abide by the logic of the first. so the second axiom is actually driven from the first , which means that it was "implied".
the logic of the first axiom was driven from facts in nature , and to avoid a long explaination , im just gonna say that since the only source of your knowledge is the world around you , then it had to be the reason for anything you have created.
silverfox2000w345452 4 years ago
The second axiom is NOT driven from the first. If it were, it would be a theorem, not an axiom.
For example, here are two of Euclid's axioms of geometry (via Wikipedia):
* any two points can be joined by a straight line
* all right angles are congruent
Neither of these implies the other; we have to take BOTH for granted.
Prepoceros 4 years ago
now since the first axiom is driven from nature , and we don't know everything about nature , then you couldn't possibly be able to predict all the implications of that axiom (which are the other axioms).
silverfox2000w345452 4 years ago
The axioms are inspired by nature, not driven from it. We come up with axioms that look like they might describe the world around us, but as mathematical statements they are *independent* of the real world.
We could just as easily come up with axioms that *don't* match what we see in nature, and they would be just as good, mathematically speaking.
Prepoceros 4 years ago
4. what i showed you is an example of a pattern that applies to any number below 9 , its exactly the same as the pattern in e or the golden ratio.
can you say why pi is infinite or why e has a relation with pi and i ??.
if it didin't have a relation you wouldn't know why either. math is just as random and enigmatic as nature.
silverfox2000w345452 4 years ago
Ok, now I see what you were saying. Then you and I are talking about completely different things.
I think the misunderstanding hinges on the words 'theory' and 'theorem.' 'Theory' is more of a science-y word. To describe a guess, an observation of a pattern that may or may not continue, a mathematician would use the word 'conjecture.'
Prepoceros 4 years ago
Conjectures are disproven all the time, and that's not a problem.
But I was talking about theorems that have been *proven*. Once something has been proven in math, it cannot be disproven, period. If a theorem could be proven and disproven simultaneously, the whole system would implode (seriously).
Prepoceros 4 years ago
This is a fundamental difference between math and science, which was my whole point in the video. Both math and science can make guesses (theories/conjectures) about the objects they study, but only math can prove some of those guesses definitively, because only in math do we know all the rules and axioms.
Prepoceros 4 years ago
a theorem can be disproven by noticing other aspects of the subject that the writer could have missed , tho his intial proof can apply to some cases , it wouldn't for others .
silverfox2000w345452 4 years ago
No, see above. If a theorem is disproven, any earlier "proofs" must have contained mistakes and must therefore not really have been proofs in the first place.
Prepoceros 4 years ago
it will stand as a proof till you find where it fails , and this applies to any natural theory.
if it appears to be true for some cases , and it takes time to prove wrong , then it's a proof .
you can't just say , "give me a year , and i will disprove it", and not call it a proof till then .
silverfox2000w345452 4 years ago
No, this is not how mathematical proof works. Although mathematicians do often look for patterns, the observation of a pattern does not constitute a proof. Proofs in math are derived from basic principles (axioms) by rules of inference. Once a theorem has been proven, it cannot be disproven.
In physics, say, for which we don't know the basic principles, most of the work IS done by noticing patterns and generalizing, but this is NOT proof.
This was the entire point of my video.
Prepoceros 4 years ago
from that you can conclude more arithmatic axioms , using earlier axioms , that you deriven from other axioms , which you concluded from observation .
silverfox2000w345452 4 years ago
2. "you have axioms , and from there you use logic" , "they make axioms up".
what is logic made of , green eggs ???. an example of an axiom is A=A. in sense of quantity , a black sheep is equal in quantity to a white sheep , so wanting to communicate the idea of equality , you create the "=" sign , and place two sheeps at both ends (logic based on philisophical axioms).
silverfox2000w345452 4 years ago
as opposed to your "thing might change" theory , gravity has empirical data to support it and much more physical reasoning; also based on years of emperical finidings. your theory is self contradicitve , if you can't prove something , then you can't prove "not ever being able to prove something" , and that's a proof right here.
silverfox2000w345452 4 years ago
omg , what a load of crap.
1. "what if with a better clock the ball rolls in 4.00000001 seconds (i.e. 4 + epsilon) "
what if the next time you the ball doesn't roll , the ball rolls in that time for a reason , you are creating your own theory (that the next time it will be diffrent for no logical reason) , and your saying it's final.
silverfox2000w345452 4 years ago
Yes, we've confirmed this law many many many times, and yes, every time we test it, we get the right numbers (assuming we don't make mistakes), but that does not constitute a proof, just very very strong evidence.
No scientist today (that I know of) expects this law to be overturned (and neither do I), but that's not the same as saying it's been proven. In particular, it is not *logically impossible* that this law will be contradicted someday. (2/2)
Prepoceros 4 years ago
It's true that physics has such a law. But even if you take the law to include all the relevant circumstances (close to Earth's surface, no air resistance, within a certain error, etc.), that law STILL has not been proven the way math proves things. (1/2)
Prepoceros 4 years ago
Hello, it's your science teacher, you flunk. See me after class.
hollywodhack 4 years ago
Things that haven't been proven. I think we can stick with the things that HAVE already survived scrutiny. You are hanging on the edge of top end information, these things provable are like addition, and subtraction. Being a physics minded individual, you leave out the facts about how things ARE proven. You left your speech as if the universe doesn't exist unless you can prove it, and math is the only way. Your rather pompous, and seek to demean I'm afraid.
hollywodhack 5 years ago
Don't be afraid! She gives a rather balanced view; maths is definite, it can be proven but has nothing to do with reality, and is useless in itself (but fun!). However, in physics we can only verify knowledge, never prove knowledge. You might want to look at Karl Popper and what he said about deduction.
yessingno 4 years ago
*How* things are proven is outside the scope of this video, though you're certainly welcome to make your own video on that subject if you like.
I never said anything about the existence of the universe.
Prepoceros 4 years ago
Wow, such brilliance! Vital...how disappointing you attack with nothing. If you know math, then put up or shut up. She is right and you cannot prove her wrong can you? No, you resort to "moron", your kettle is black.
wolfhunter0321 5 years ago
wow, do you have a boyfriend?
newexperiment 5 years ago
BTW, Hearing somebody mention Euclid and other forms of geometry on YT, made me far too excited.
OC5 5 years ago
This video is incredibly lucid. As a student of philosophy and theology, I am constantly frustrated by folks in my 'field' think they can prove things conclusively. Fundamentally, the reason for such confusions stems from Descartes philosophy I would wager.
OC5 5 years ago
Phenomenal video!
ClosetedAtheist 5 years ago
This was an interesting clip to me, the difference between science and math has never occurred to me before. Thanks!
lumikitten 5 years ago
I understand what you are saying
but its a semantic issue
a thoery is a thoery, facts and axims are derived to make sense to human fuzzy logic, ie
something is or it isn't something
what you should really do is discuss quantum physics :P
randomagain101 5 years ago
Right on! Brilliant and perfectly laid out, my sister in mathematics!
reverbdeluxe1965 5 years ago
Have you read " the rise of scientific philosophy" by my fav scientific philosopher Hans Reichenberg? good book. it pretty much tells us what you said and what we need to know about science and math.
carlosb1 5 years ago
No, I haven't run across that one, but I might check it out. Thanks for the recommendation!
Prepoceros 5 years ago
This is a great quality video. I agree with all that you said. Thanks for the video!
pjdude 5 years ago
Scientists do use it that way. Mathematicians don't. I guess if you want to argue semantics then that's how you go about it. If proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the available evidence then what I said is just confirmation. Proof still exists though.
It's like arguing the difference between theory in a scientific sense and theory in a legal sense.
captainspirou 5 years ago
You say scientists use it that way, I say they don't. There's a "discussion" that's going nowhere fast. =)
I don't know where I'd find support for my assertion (negative evidence is tough to come by), so I can agree to disagree. I think we're on the same page, anyway, apart from the words.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
There's some errors in this.
You can prove theories in science. If you make a theory and the experimental results agree within error then it's proved. The proof is open-ended and not definitive though.
Axioms are not just 'made up' either. They at least can't contradict themselves. You must adhere to basic logic. I 'm sure I could come up with a postulate that would create a universe where 4=7. However that is patently absurd since literally nothing in that universe is wrong.
captainspirou 5 years ago
You're using a different definition of proof than I am. When I say "proof," I mean absolute proof.
It's fine that we have different definitions, but it's important to note that scientists don't use the word "proof" the way you do. When experimental data agrees with a theory, scientists say the theory is "supported" or "confirmed," not "proven."
Prepoceros 5 years ago
[cont.]
Yeah, I was being a bit flippant when I said axioms are "made up." I didn't mean that mathematicians aimlessly pull them out of thin air. You're right that a set of axioms which leads to a contradiction is no good.
What I meant by "made up" is that axioms don't require any proof or justification from the real world. They exist as abstract propositions, independent of any experiments or observations.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
>>Now we know that for every case where gravity comes into play that objects fall toward the earth at 9.8 m/s^2.
For every case? No. The moon, for instance, does not fall toward the earth at 9.8m/s^2. It falls, for sure, but at a different acceleration. The "9.8 rule" only applies to objects close to the earth.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
But I'll assume you knew that and were referring to Newton's more general Law of Universal Gravitation, from which that rule is derived. This law (like all laws of science) hasn't been proven, and in fact we've known it to be false for a hundred years, ever since the first good evidence for Einstein's theory of general relativity came in.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
Calling something a law doesn't mean it's been proven, it means that it has stood up to many tests and been confirmed repeatedly. Even though Newtonian gravity has been shown to be wrong, we still teach it in schools because it's useful. For slow speeds and small masses, the numbers you get using the Newtonian law are not quite right, but they're close enough that it doesn't matter.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
Science is constantly trying to disprove itself and overturn its own laws. That's why it's been able to make so much progress. If laws were proven absolutely, we might as well use physics textbooks from the 16th century (with edits for language). We don't, because in the meantime science has thrown out some of those laws and replaced them with better ones.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
I think it has been shown that Euclidean Geometry doesn't accurately describe the universe since space is curved and straight lines aren't possible.
synonys 5 years ago
Yeah, that's my understanding of it, too.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
Good video. I was wondering does infinity exist in math? Is it a number?
peranimo 5 years ago
Infinity is more of an idea than a number. To say that something is infinite means that it has no finite size or number. For more information I recommend you check out websnarf's recent video about infinity -- he explains it in more detail.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
You might as well say that there is a huge, mass-less, invisible, teapot in the middle of the universe. It is unobservable and therefore cannot be proven beyond doubt. So must we take into account the possibility of it existing? Of course not. Think about it before saying the Agnostic mantra (we can't dismiss the notion of god because we can't disprove it completely).
spiritcrusha 5 years ago
What? I didn't say "the Agnostic mantra," and I wasn't planning to. Don't put words in my mouth.
This video isn't about religion at all; it's about math and science.
Must we take into account the unobservable teapot? Philosophically? Sure, why not.
When we're plotting our spaceship's trajectory? Absolutely not. If we can't observe it, it can't have any effect on us.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
I don't know where you were heading with this argument that science is just probabilities. But if you are Agnostic, think about this: Is it fair to regard science and god both as "possible?" even though the probability of god existing is so small and the probability of so many fields in science being true is so huge?
spiritcrusha 5 years ago
(1) If I'd been heading somewhere, I'd have gone there.
(2) It depends on what you mean by fair. To me, "fairness" is neither well-defined nor particularly important.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
About axioms, they are a bit precarious from a mathematician point of view. But they are intuitive. Because no matter how hard you try, two different lines will never go through the same two points (in a 3, linear, dimension world). And no matter how hard you try, two straight lines will never cross each other in more than one point.
You are right there is a chance of e-13 or something percent that math is, in fact, not true. But in real life, this is regarded as 0.
spiritcrusha 5 years ago
>>But in real life, this is regarded as 0.
Exactly! It sounds as though you're rebutting my video, but I haven't made most of the claims you seem to think I have. I never said we should go about our daily lives worried that we don't know for sure that space is Euclidean. On human-sized scales of time and space, Euclidean geometry is either right or too close to matter.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
Than it's a nice philosophical discussion. But nothing more than that really.
spiritcrusha 5 years ago
Then*
Forgive me, I am not a native speaker.
spiritcrusha 5 years ago
The same thing goes with Euclidean Geometry. It is a model, not set to describe the entire universe, but a small part of it. And again, it works. People have used, and are using it in many areas, in real life.
spiritcrusha 5 years ago
Of course it works! I never said it didn't. It wouldn't have stuck around for so long if it didn't work.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
Second, the views that were presented in your video are somewhat black and white, and rather childish. Of course math and science can't be proven completely. But before jumping into finding flaws, how about looking to what is the purpose of Science?
The purpose of science is to explain. It is simple as that. Take Quantum Physics for example;
spiritcrusha 5 years ago
I wasn't finding flaws. What part of the video made you think that?
IMO, the statement that science doesn't prove things absolutely is anything BUT black and white. Maybe I misunderstand -- were you referring to something else?
Yes, science's purpose is to explain, and it does an excellent job of it, better than any other tool we have.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
First of all, you should really get your "science facts" straight. In Quantum Electrodynamics, a virtual photon with the right amplitude and go slower or faster than the speed of light, but this does not apply on real photons (AKA light).
spiritcrusha 5 years ago
You're right, I should have said "virtual photons" instead of "light." Whether those count as "not nothing" can be argued, I suppose.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
Hi Prepocerus, Great video, very easy to understand. I'd like to know what you think of this statement: Science is a system for looking at the world and predicting unknowns based on knowns. Math is not "the real world" but only a model of the world based on rules which provide predictable results. Using calculations based on these rules we can arrive at results which science (up to this point) seems to confirm. Therefore, math is imperfect, but useful.
n8glenn 5 years ago
>>Science is a system for looking at the world and predicting unknowns based on knowns.
I can agree with that.
>>Math is not "the real world" but only a model of the world based on rules which provide predictable results.
I disagree. Math is not the real world, like you said, but it is also not a model of the real world. The rules we use in math are certainly motivated by rules that seem to hold in the real world, but the theorems that math proves are valid regardless of anything "real."
Prepoceros 5 years ago
[cont.]
>>Therefore, math is imperfect, but useful.
No. Math is perfect, in the sense that the theorems we prove with math are absolutely guaranteed to be correct. The "problem" arises from the fact that we don't know whether the assumptions we've made apply to the real world, but that's science's problem, not math's.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
[cont. again]
Science does use math and in fact couldn't exist (as we know it) without math. Science says, "Hey, here are some simple rules that look like they describe the observations I've made." Math takes those rules and says, "IF those are true, THEN these other things are true." Science goes off to test the other things, and on the basis of those tests it strengthens, revises, or discards its guesses at the rules. Rinse and repeat.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
[cont. again again]
Math is also often done for its own sake, without any intent whatsoever of modelling the real world.
Math can only talk about an abstract, invented world. As soon as you start trying to model the real world, that's science.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
Yes, that's what I mean by math being imperfect, but certainly within itself it is perfect. As long as you stick to the rules, you're always correct. Thanks for clarifying all this, very interesting.
n8glenn 5 years ago
You're welcome -- I enjoyed making it. And thanks to you, too, for clarifying it further. =)
Prepoceros 5 years ago
Hi Prepocerus, I loved this video, very easy to understand. I've always thought that a line should be drawn between math and science. What do you think of this definition:
Science is a system for predicting future events based on observing the world and deducing underlying principles. Math is a model of the natural world based on past observations, which is used to predict future events (with varying degrees of accuracy).
n8glenn 5 years ago
I would usually say math and science are branches of philosophy rather than philosophy is a science... what is fundimentaly different between what mathmatics requires as a proof and what philosophy requires as proof? both are essentually thought experiments ...
goon6034 5 years ago
Not much. In this video I'm trying to differentiate not between math and philosophy, but between math and science.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
I was wondering what a mathematician's POV was on that one I have a friend who is a philosopher (PHD student) who gives me crap about science never being able to prove anything where as he got first class hons for proving he cant prove he exists... being a research geologist I can't even clame to many viable theories
goon6034 5 years ago
But at least you can find some consolation in knowing that the work you do might actually affect the real world in some tangible way. Right? =)
Prepoceros 5 years ago
yes but he gets payed for arguing with people ....
goon6034 5 years ago
That's a low blow completely uncalled for. Especially as it seems to me judging from your videos and other comments that you yourself don't understand science that well.
You should at least know the terms you are talking in. The juggling with words is a trait normally used by theists to evade argument ("evolution is just a theory"). So please, as you are someone who calls himself an atheist, stick to the scientific definitions so you wont cause even more confusion.
superdau 5 years ago
this was intended for hardcaseownsyou, of course
superdau 5 years ago
all of this is elementary, my dear
shroomingnewman 5 years ago
Smart and cute, nice.
Castaa 5 years ago
That was really cool! I probly learned more from that video than I would learn at school. You make all of my teachers sound pretty stupid! LOL
MegiSohma 5 years ago
My comment below was supposed to be a reply to interestedinscience. <=)
And to Prepoceros:
Man I loved that video. Great, easy to follow reasoning, and you are very enjoyable to listen at. Good work.
Ompas895 5 years ago
Hm, i´d say not almost but not quite. Of course we have our reasons to use the axioms that we do, and these sure are based in our observations from the real world. On the other hand, those observations cant be proven to be correct, a central point in this video. And because of this, our reasons to pick this group of axioms and not some other remains informal. In short, we made them up, for good reasons, but only from a human - not absolute - perspective.
Ompas895 5 years ago
Great clarification, Ompas895...I couldn't have said it better myself.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
You laid all that out really well.
mranenome 5 years ago
I could listen to you speak on these things for hours. Well done.
You speak well and confident. May disagree on some points, but nevermind. Just wanted to say that.
Hope to see more vids.
peace
cjunk351 5 years ago
This is more educational than an educational program. Most educational programs communicate narratives, histories, but outside of those, we rarely get good mental closures.
LionKimbro 5 years ago
This was actually a question I've had turning in the back of my head for a while now and it was great to stumble apon the answer from you. Great video. Thanks.
mynameisfloyd 5 years ago
The technicalities of this kinda lost me. But I agree in general. As an atheist, I like believing in science because it's adaptable and *strives* for truth more than achieves it; whereas religion is about the comfort of believing one rigid ancient truth.
SqueakyGibson 5 years ago
You'd make an awesome teacher. :-)
TechnoHamster 5 years ago
Thank you, I hope so. =)
Prepoceros 5 years ago
Firstly I beleive your basci premise i.e. you cannot prove a theory absolutely, if you're talking physics. After all I can say "the sun will rise tomorrow" and when it does I've proved me theory. However if I say, as a physicist (sp?) would "it will rise at 5.35am" you can always argue that I was incorrect due to a lack of refinment in my equipment.
Billy7766 5 years ago
Posted this, read it again, realised it was dumb. Please ignore.
Billy7766 5 years ago
That is actually a kind of good example of what she was talking about. You say, "the sun will rise tomorrow", okay, it does tomorrow, that is not PROOF. that is EVIDENCE. Say you lived a long time ago, most people would agree that that is a proven fact. WRONG. That is exactly what she is talking about. The Sun does not rise at all, certainly not around the Earth anyways. The Earth is revolving around the Sun, so it is the Earth moving, not the Sun rising.
rufusdark 5 years ago
that last post was only supposed to be the first part of a very long response, but youtube was being gay and so I gave up on trying to post it.
rufusdark 5 years ago
Thanks. I'm glad we can break this off cleanly -- I was beginning to fear it would devolve into sniping, haterism, and, eventually, Hitler references.
A comparison to Hermione? You flatter me. =P
No hard feelings here either. Guess I'll have to go take the pins out of my hardcase voodoo doll now. (kidding)
Prepoceros 5 years ago
a bit redundant; but yet will watch more ;)
sdel24 5 years ago
it`s the first time i see a female very near to my age and i can say for 100% sure that she`s smarter than me. Comment: no comment just Gauss, Bolyai Janos (Appendix) and some russian guy
blmutantx 5 years ago
Great stuff. These fundementals need to be described. Many people, including myself, band about these terms without realising their true meanings.
pdoeman 5 years ago
I'm using the same standard science does.
Scientific laws generally have mounds of evidence behind them, but they can never be proven, not even in principle. QED is a beautiful theory with great predictive power, but no physicist would claim that it has been proven.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
See DClaudeKatz's latest comment and my response for an explanation of why this does not render science futile. Although we can't know whether these laws are true, we know that, at the scales we care about, they're close enough approximations to be useful in building bridges, flying to the moon, and fighting disease.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
Off-topic, but fun to point out:
You've now given "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" and QED as laws/theories that have been "proven." But QED says that light can travel faster than c (the "speed of light") -- a contradiction between two "proven" theories.
I don't expect this to fluster you, as you (I think) define scientific proof as non-absolute, but I think it's funny nonetheless.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
So you've switched from debating the issues to vague personal attacks. Not a methodology I generally respect, but to each his own.
I'm open to corrections and discussion. How do you suggest I go about improving my understanding of science? Any sources you would recommend?
Prepoceros 5 years ago
As for making more math/science videos, please do. Your explination was much simpler and well put than my math teacher's attempt when I was still at school. As for a populiser of science I think you'd make a pretty good one, well at least better than my old teacher.
VincentXXI 5 years ago
Thank you -- I think I might. This was one of the most enjoyable videos I've made. Ever since I started on YT I've been trying to figure out how to use what knowledge I have (math, science, teaching, language) in this new medium. This sort of thing might be it.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
Maybe it's a dislocated question, but could you talk (a little) about that blue - ocean|sky - background?
juliocrf 5 years ago
I was wondering if anyone would ask!
It's actually a round tablecloth my mom bought back in the 60s or 70s when she was living on her own. She hasn't used it in years, but I have a round table in my apartment, so she let me have it. I think it's fabulous.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
Beautiful.
juliocrf 5 years ago
Distinguish between theory as model and theory as possible fact. Criminal cases clearly deal with possible facts ("he stabbed her"). In my view, science deals with models rather than possible facts. In economics (my field), even most good theories are too ridiculous to be regarded as possible facts. But I see even physics as looking for "useful descriptions" rather than "pure truth."
DClaudeKatz 5 years ago
Good point -- I touched on this briefly but ended up cutting it from the video.
If scientists were only interested in discovering the absolute truth, there'd be no point in doing science, since we admit that nothing is absolutely knowable.
Science aims in that direction, though, and the theories it creates along the way make useful predictions about the world.
NASA got their ships to the moon and back using the Newtonian theory of gravity -- they knew it was wrong, but it was close enough.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
This is great and intellgently submitted stuff to me... very sympatic. :-)
zahnzieher 5 years ago
M-W; theory; abstract thought; a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject.
juliocrf 5 years ago
Strange that they use the word "theorems" like that.
I prefer this definition (the fourth in the online unabridged version):
"a judgment, conception, proposition, or formula (as relating to the nature, action, cause, or origin of a phenomenon or group of phenomena) formed by speculation or deduction or by abstraction and generalization from facts"
Prepoceros 5 years ago
Forgive me, I'm not (already) a member (M-W U)... [hhhhh]. Again, I agree.
juliocrf 5 years ago
For me, you were (so) clear. In fact, I agree (I guess) with you completely (Math; Science). For example (basic), even in Set Theory, there are books with (slightly) different axioms; therefore, of course, the respective "sets" of theorems (assembled with mathematical logic; proof) are distincts. I don't understand some comments, I guess I'm stupid. Um abraço. [Oh] Bad English (above).
juliocrf 5 years ago
That's another good example, thanks.
I don't think too many people who study set theory could be considered "stupid." =)
Prepoceros 5 years ago
My psychic powers are sensing a successful teaching career in your future.
I love that there are people who vlog about epistemology on YouTube.
DClaudeKatz 5 years ago
You think so? I hope you're right -- I love teaching. =)
When I grow up I want to be a teacher, a linguist, a mathematician, or a popularizer of science. All four, if I'm lucky.
Is this what epistemology is?
*consults Wikipedia*
Well I'll be durned...I thought I disliked philosophy!
Prepoceros 5 years ago
I guess you could be, say, a professor of mathematical linguistics who writes books (or makes videos!) for the general public. (Sounds like the graduate program could be rather painful, though.)
You seem to have an awfully good grasp of epistemology for someone who didn't even know she was talking about it.
DClaudeKatz 5 years ago
And with the addition of "epistemology" to the tags, this video brings the search results for that term to an amazing...twenty-six. More than I expected.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
Observation may not be the only factor, but it underlies all the others. Yes, science does extrapolate---that's how it comes up with its laws and principles, like the idea that the speed of light can't be exceeded---but those extrapolations are BASED ON observations. The accuracy of an extrapolation is limited by the observations on which it is based.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
Yes, that is what I'm asserting. Whether or not you think it's ridiculous is irrelevant. If you want to talk about scientific theories, you have to play by science's rules.
It's just struck me that you might have been talking about evolution and gravity as theories of something BESIDES science. If that's the case, that's fine, but then I would not be interested in discussing this further, because I don't know what rules you're playing by.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
OUCH! You smacked him pretty good, there!
tlg847 4 years ago
Sure, there are scientific principles. Many people would call the Laws of Thermodynamics principles, for example. What I'm claiming is that none of them have been proven, by scientific standards.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
Hmmm. M-W calls science a "branch...of systematized knowledge," and that definition applies to math as well.
Perhaps I should have used the terms "pure math" and "science besides math" (or just "physics," to narrow the discussion a bit).
The point remains that in pure math, there are no theories, only theorems. Physics has theories, but those theories cannot be proven because we don't *know* the basic principles of physics.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
The main thing that prevents scientists from "proving" anything is their unwillingness to consider anything as being conclusively proven, by civilian standards of proof, a court of law for example, the "theory of gravity" has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, portions of it may continue to be fine tuned, but as I said the theory of gravity would be found guilty by a jury of being true.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 5 years ago
The burden of scientific proof should be much higher than what would be use in most other fields, I'm not arguing that it is a bad thing, just pointing out that it is, historians for example have a much lower level of what would be considered proof, the existence of many historical figures are accepted as being true by historians, but would be considered barely acceptable hypotheses by scientists.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 5 years ago
Great point, thank you.
I think these differing standards of proof might be a big part of the confusion. The idea of proof in math (and science) is very rigorous, though in other fields we say something is proven when it's *very likely* to be true or *almost certainly* true.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
A similar misunderstanding or intentional misrepresentation is common regarding the term agnostic, at least among believers, saying you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god is interpreted as meaning it is just as likely god exists as that he doesn't.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 5 years ago
Does this mean, then, that it's logically consistent to be an agnostic atheist (holding that one cannot prove or disprove God's existence, but believing him not to exist) or an agnostic theist?
I rather like that idea.
Prepoceros 5 years ago
I consider myself an agnostic atheist, I would define my wife as an agnostic theist, since the likelihood of god existing is so remote a pure agnostic by default is much more of an atheist than a theist.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 5 years ago
To my mind, theology is more like math than science, and probability is the wrong way to think about it. I am both a theist and an atheist, but I wouldn't call myself an agnostic. I believe in worshipping a God that doesn't exist, even (especially!) if He absolutely doesn't exist. I don't see this as any more nonsensical than believing in both Euclidean and Riemannian geometry.
DClaudeKatz 5 years ago