Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!border2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 16:16:42 -0500 From: Gareth Owen Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: The truth comes out ... DNA proves evolution is a myth References: <6c40cc35-7933-4fdb-9f65-8d5db74ac551@googlegroups.com> <87pook3eh9.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 22:16:41 +0100 Message-ID: <87mvjon0p2.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:9Yg7/toMs2Rbr03hgc8gDQcADfo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 44 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-mqNFbIVkctm17qek4PbDJDIcxKWghTHj5k4cyUSEC9K3WMm/b7DXGWyJK9He9GxbK8T91bzk50mTB2c!NaeCSpL3Gf3s3M+YeouiJEa5jFJ4KthCfge/21PK9L2eoDhrH4MRWRvpn0IESaq0 X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 3394 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:93177 jacobnavia writes: > Le 03/09/2016 à 22:39, Gareth Owen a écrit : >> Mathematics, like logic, is a key underpinning of science, but it is not >> itself science. The practice of doing the vast bulk of novel >> mathematics does not follow the scientific method. >> > > Of course maths is a science, with special rules since the object of > maths, the ideal realm, is different than the realm of experimental > science. Very few mathematicians would agree with you. Some would, though. https://www.google.com/search?q=is+maths+a+science I can't prove the Goldbach conjecture by looking at "sufficiently many" even numbers. I can't devise an experiment that will confirm or refute the Riemann Hypothesis. >>> > There aren't proofs in *experimental* science, but proofs are the pure >>> > product of maths. >> The term "experimental science" is a tortology. >> > > No. There other sciences that are not experimental. Astronomy, for > example. Astronomers can just OBSERVE, they do not have any > possibility of doing any experiments with the stars, galaxies, or > whatever they see. The difference between "observation" and "experiment" is irrelevant here. Astronomers make observations, infer hypotheses from those observations -- e.g. "There's a lot of dark matter out there affecting the expansion of the universe" or "There is free standing water on Europa" -- then they make predictions and look for observations that fulfill or confound those predictions -- "How rapidly are distant stars receding?" or "Screw it, lets crash a probe into Europa for shit and giggles" That they have to search the skies for these observations, rather than set them up in a lab is simply not relevant (and, as with various landers on bodies in the Solar System, they absolutely can set up *some* experiments). I'm pretty certain the guys who recently detected gravity waves will be surprised to learn they weren't capable of doing experiments.