Günther Greindl wrote: > Well, depends on what you want to do - developing _new_ theories is best > done via metaphor; to get a qualitative feel for the stuff; speculative > philosophy, if you like (that is indeed what I like to do :-)) > > But to make it into science, which means that you can make predictive > models certainly means mathematizing the theory.
I agree with your gist but not your specific words. [grin] All pursuit of truth is science, regardless of the language. So, developing new theories with metaphor _is_ science (as long as the theories are testable). And mathematization isn't necessary for prediction, unless you really widen the definition of "mathematics" to mean even qualitative distinctions like "dead" or "alive". I don't think, for example, a physician is really describing her patient mathematically when she hypothesizes that placing leeches on them will cure them of consumption. Yet, an experiment can be devised to (for the most part) falsify that hypothesis. So, science can be done without mathematics. But it is _coarse_ science. To be refined (or complete), you definitely need math. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
