Why are we parsing discoveries into those two types? I think traditionally, "mathematical" would have been synonymous with "rigorous deduction groin a minimal number of axioms", but I doubt that approach is clear cut anymore.
Given that you claim to have sussed out your insight via systematic *empirical* observation, and you claim it regarding a particular class of *empirical* objects... I'd go with "empirical"... if I had to choose one for you... but I'm also not sure why we would play this game to begin with. Unless you confessed to me that it was insecurities tied to a deep seeded physics envy... in which case I'd at least understand why you asked. On Fri, Sep 3, 2021, 1:25 PM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > By discovery, I mean only happening on a regularity that was unexpected. > > > > I guess I didn’t need all the razzle-dazzle about the t-shirts. Let’s say > that I, being totally naïve of logic, announced to friam that I had made a > survey of all my never-married male friends and each and every one claimed > to be a bachelor. I offered to you-all, as an insight, that all unmarried > men are bachelors. I think I have made that “discovery” empirically; you > might have arrived at the same insight logically. Perhaps the empirical vs > mathematical thing is methodological. Of course, I now realize that > inorder to arrive at my empirical conclusion, I had to invoke the logical > form, induction: this man is un-married, this man is a batchelor, all > batchelors are unmarried. You might have arrived at the same conclusion > deductively (i.e., mathematically). > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp > *Sent:* Friday, September 3, 2021 12:48 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Can empirical discoveries be mathematical? > > > > Nick, > > I quote from https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-theory > > "In attempting to explain objects and events, the scientist employs (1) > careful observation or experiments, (2) reports of regularities, and (3) > systematic explanatory schemes (theories). The statements of regularities, > if accurate, may be taken as empirical laws expressing continuing > relationships among the objects or characteristics observed." > > Based on this, I reckon, because you have reported the regularities, you > have discovered an empirical scientific law. Congratulations! > > Next is to systematically explain it, then you have a scientific theory! > > Maybe I did not answer your question? You asked if this is an empirical > discovery or a mathematical one. > > > IMO you have done only the first part, the empirical discovery. This could > now be taken further and if you can prove it using formal mathematics, then > only can you claim you have made a mathematical discovery. So, it is (not > yet) a mathematical discovery. Sorry to blow your bubble. > > P > > > > On Fri, 3 Sept 2021 at 17:24, <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Colleagues, > > > > Years ago, my daughter, who knows I hate to shop, bought me a bunch of > plain T-shirts. The label’s on the shirts were printed, rather than > attached, and so have faded. Each morning, this leaves me with the problem > of decerning which is the front and which the back of the shirt, and even, > which the inside and which the out-. After years of fussing with these > shirts I decerned a pattern. Up/down, inside-in/inside-out, left/right, > front/back, crossed arms/uncrossed arms, you can’t do one transformation > without doing at least one other. > > > > Is this an empirical discovery or a mathematical one? > > > > I guess it boils down to whether “front/back” entails in its meaning > another transformation. Should we call empirical discoveries > “discoveries” and mathematical discoveries “revelations”? > > > > Nick > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
