"Eubulides" <[email protected]> wrote: > Are there any large scale studies as to the comparison of the how's > and why's of belief/theory change in the disciplines of physics, > ecology, neuroscience and economics?
Mathematics (including logic) is a special category apart from the sciences in that all true statements can be proven. However, that doesn't stop mathematicians from making assumptions that correspond to some mystic view of mathematics. For instance, the axiom of choice isn't needed and results in some bizarre conclusions. Even Gödel interpreted the unprovable statements in mathematics as being true despite the negation of those statements as being unprovable. Physics has its problems with quantum mechanics and particle physics with even larger accelerators being proposed and no unified theory to justify it. > Mirror, mirror on the wall, which discipline enables the most > mule-headed of all? I think that the field of nutrition is in bad shape with all sorts (e.g. Dr Oz) making weird pronouncements about the benefits of olive oil, coconut oil, wine, garlic, and grass fed beef. Computer science has its problems with too many vendors trying to sell their solutions to the public. (Sounds like the problem economics has.) Economics when done right can be a science but needs to be done in a more rigorous manner. -- Ron
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
