Why math isnt really a science

[Overkommer]

Let`s say you have a ruler and you want to measuere something, the smallest on it is millimeter, but even if you measuere with it it`s not really 100 % accurate since you can always measuere something smaller, so let`s say you make a ruler with something less than a millimeter, it`s still not 100 % accurate since you can make an even smaller ruler, and so fourth, you can do this forever almost, originally the ruler was made to build simple houses in the old days and they used inches normally, not millimeter, but a piece of thing you make can never be 100 % as it`s a little primitive to make tools also, that`s why people who are more rational struggles more with math than irrational ones in school, not only because the teacher never teaches you anything about how it really works, but also because it`s never 100 % accurate, yiu can argue this, but let`s say you measuere with atoms, one atom, two atoms, and so fourth, even the atom can be broken down to smaller parts, eventually you come down to pure energy and you try to measuere it`s length with a tool again, you`d still have the same problem, so math isn`t really a science or important, and an artist also can say he can make anything you want without it (math)

 

[Sabertooth]

Math is the language of science.

 

[Overkommer]

Math is the language of science.

You completly ignore that it isn`t very accurate

 

[Sabertooth]

All you have called into question (in the OP) are tools of measurement. Most give a useful approximation.

 

[Tanj]

Let`s say you have a ruler and you want to measuere something, the smallest on it is millimeter, but even if you measuere with it it`s not really 100 % accurate since you can always measuere something smaller, so let`s say you make a ruler with something less than a millimeter, it`s still not 100 % accurate since you can make an even smaller ruler, and so fourth, you can do this forever almost, originally the ruler was made to build simple houses in the old days and they used inches normally, not millimeter, but a piece of thing you make can never be 100 % as it`s a little primitive to make tools also, that`s why people who are more rational struggles more with math than irrational ones in school, not only because the teacher never teaches you anything about how it really works, but also because it`s never 100 % accurate, yiu can argue this, but let`s say you measuere with atoms, one atom, two atoms, and so fourth, even the atom can be broken down to smaller parts, eventually you come down to pure energy and you try to measuere it`s length with a tool again, you`d still have the same problem, so math isn`t really a science or important, and an artist also can say he can make anything you want without it (math)

What you are describing isn't "math". It's measurement. Empirical measurement is an integral part of science and is rarely completely accurate. Thats why all empirical measures in science come with confidence intervals and significance values.

Also, what you are describing has nothing to do with ethics or morality.

 

[Bradskii]

...because the teacher never teaches you anything about how it really works, but also because it`s never 100 % accurate...

If you add 2 plus 2, then the answer is not approximately 4.

 

[Jonaitis]

Let`s say you have a ruler and you want to measuere something, the smallest on it is millimeter, but even if you measuere with it it`s not really 100 % accurate since you can always measuere something smaller, so let`s say you make a ruler with something less than a millimeter, it`s still not 100 % accurate since you can make an even smaller ruler, and so fourth, you can do this forever almost, originally the ruler was made to build simple houses in the old days and they used inches normally, not millimeter, but a piece of thing you make can never be 100 % as it`s a little primitive to make tools also, that`s why people who are more rational struggles more with math than irrational ones in school, not only because the teacher never teaches you anything about how it really works, but also because it`s never 100 % accurate, yiu can argue this, but let`s say you measuere with atoms, one atom, two atoms, and so fourth, even the atom can be broken down to smaller parts, eventually you come down to pure energy and you try to measuere it`s length with a tool again, you`d still have the same problem, so math isn`t really a science or important, and an artist also can say he can make anything you want without it (math)

Yes, it is a construct of our observation, but the construct is useful for us to navigate in our concept of a society.

The same could be said of time, which is primarily determined by change/movement. However, when we talk about the past and future, we talk about it in the present. How long is the present—before it becomes the past? Or, how long is the present—before it becomes the future? The answer is that there is no definitive/objective length of the present, because time is bound by the unbroken present "now." The concept of time that we often employ is to help us navigate this world as thinking creatures.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

Please read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[trophy33]

If you add 2 plus 2, then the answer is not approximately 4.

Well, from the philosophical point of view, no two things in the universe are the same (or else they would be one thing), so whenever we put together for example 2 apples + 2 apples, we will have approximately 4 apples.

Why approximately? Because their mass, shape, contents or position are different from each other. We can never have a precisely defined "apple".

 

[Bradskii]

Well, from the philosophical point of view, no two things in the universe are the same (or else they would be one thing), so whenever we put together for example 2 apples + 2 apples, we will have approximately 4 apples.

Why approximately? Because their mass, shape, contents or position are different from each other. We can never have a precisely defined "apple".

I was actually going to use a2 + b2 = c2 instead of 2+2 but I thought 'who could possible argue with 2+2!' But yeah, in the respect that we use the numbers to represent some items then you are right in that they are not the same. But we could use 2+2 to represent different objects. So I have an apple, an orange, a banana and a planet. Add the first two to the second and we have 4 items.

And in regard to Pythagoras, we are talking about a Platonic ideal of a right angled triangle. Same with PI and areas of circles and volumes etc. But then would a2 + b2 = c2 be true if there were no such thing as a right angled triangle? Does 2+2 equal 4 even if there aren't 4 things in existence?

Anyway, I've got to pour myself another drink. So...

 

[trophy33]

Anyway, I've got to pour myself another drink. So...

Approximately another. Maybe its a part of the previous one, maybe its a part of the next one.

 

[Larniavc]

Let`s say you have a ruler and you want to measuere something, the smallest on it is millimeter, but even if you measuere with it it`s not really 100 % accurate since you can always measuere something smaller, so let`s say you make a ruler with something less than a millimeter, it`s still not 100 % accurate since you can make an even smaller ruler, and so fourth, you can do this forever almost, originally the ruler was made to build simple houses in the old days and they used inches normally, not millimeter, but a piece of thing you make can never be 100 % as it`s a little primitive to make tools also, that`s why people who are more rational struggles more with math than irrational ones in school, not only because the teacher never teaches you anything about how it really works, but also because it`s never 100 % accurate, yiu can argue this, but let`s say you measuere with atoms, one atom, two atoms, and so fourth, even the atom can be broken down to smaller parts, eventually you come down to pure energy and you try to measuere it`s length with a tool again, you`d still have the same problem, so math isn`t really a science or important, and an artist also can say he can make anything you want without it (math)

That’s the limitation of measurement. And maths isn’t a science: does it follow the the scientific model?

 

[Larniavc]

Well, from the philosophical point of view, no two things in the universe are the same (or else they would be one thing), so whenever we put together for example 2 apples + 2 apples, we will have approximately 4 apples.

Why approximately? Because their mass, shape, contents or position are different from each other. We can never have a precisely defined "apple".

What about platonic apples?