Eric, Nick's question and the parsing of discoveries into two types intrigue me. I'm an engineer, so maybe I have a deep seeded philosophy of science envy?
Pieter On Fri, 3 Sept 2021 at 19:58, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/