tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046071861494986299.post6371880390662010641..comments2023-08-26T05:08:54.898-07:00Comments on Magic, maths and money: Science, politics, mathematics and financeTim Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06952723922503939504noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046071861494986299.post-45979181231634428412013-07-16T23:20:40.886-07:002013-07-16T23:20:40.886-07:00What a good blog you have here. Please update it m...What a good blog you have here. Please update it more often. This topics is my interest. Thank you. . . <a href="http://www.paydayloansbrampton.ca" rel="nofollow">Sarah</a><br /><br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09988824537426226265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046071861494986299.post-43501550474260904012013-01-10T03:27:26.121-08:002013-01-10T03:27:26.121-08:00I missed the Cox/Ince thing on twitter. I also mis...I missed the Cox/Ince thing on twitter. I also missed all bar one of Cox's 'Wonders of' programs. Although I do remember at the end of the one I did see (it might have been the last one in a series) he included a plea for more funding for particle physics research. I grumbled at the TV that this was yet another scientist wanting to take Money, with no recognition whatsoever of science's debt to Money itself.<br /><br />I enjoy reading your blog. Very pleased to find someone who likes Joel Kaye's excellent 'Economy & Nature'. Seaford's 'Money and the Early Greek Mind' is also well worth the effort - although more Metaphysics/Philosophy than Maths/Science.<br /><br />I'm just about to use this quote on a post myself. Seems relevant to this post too though,<br /><br />"If there is one conclusion of overriding importance to be drawn from the increasing realization in recent times that science is a human product, it is that, like other human products, the only way it can ultimately be evaluated is in terms of whether it contributes to the thriving of the sentient beings in this universe." John Dupre "The Disorder of Things" (1995) p.264<br /><br />JonMBGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18404729484594219550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046071861494986299.post-26774577583786047352013-01-05T12:22:34.912-08:002013-01-05T12:22:34.912-08:00"Science is the framework within which we rea..."Science is the framework within which we reach conclusions about the natural world. These conclusions are always preliminary, always open to revision, but they are the best we can do. It is not logical to challenge the findings of science unless there are specific, evidence-based reasons for doing so. Elected politicians are free to disregard its findings and recommendations. Indeed, there may be good reasons for doing so. But they must understand in detail what they are disregarding, and be prepared to explain with precision why they chose to do so. It is not acceptable to see science as one among many acceptable “views”. Science is the only way we have of exploring nature, and nature exists outside of human structures."<br /><br />Thanks for the interesting post. If you replace "Scholasticism" by "religion" in the above piece, you get the same mix of words:<br /><br />"Scholasticism is the framework within which we reach conclusions about the natural world. These conclusions are always preliminary, always open to revision, but they are the best we can do. It is not logical to challenge the findings of Scholasticism unless there are specific, evidence-based reasons for doing so. Elected politicians are free to disregard its findings and recommendations. Indeed, there may be good reasons for doing so. But they must understand in detail what they are disregarding, and be prepared to explain with precision why they chose to do so. It is not acceptable to see Scholasticism as one among many acceptable “views”. Scholasticism is the only way we have of exploring nature, and nature exists outside of human structures."<br /><br />Both statements describe a dogma, a sort of a religion. The reason is that nobody know what "is" <br /><br />natural world<br />logical<br />precision<br />nature exists outside of human structures<br /><br />terms that are found in the above declaration.<br /><br />www.digitalcosmology.com<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06787200197343589571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046071861494986299.post-41979176050550642642013-01-05T07:40:32.303-08:002013-01-05T07:40:32.303-08:00Good article. I've followed this interesting d...Good article. I've followed this interesting debate since it kicked off, and it's dawning on me that this toing and froing is becoming increasingly muddled. FWIW, this is my take as to why.<br /><br />"Science" (that's C&I's science) quite correctly stands as a pillar in its own right. A pillar that is self-regulatory, as it continually strives to make truth of fundamental Nature.<br /><br />As I see it, the muddling stems from two distinct problems... firstly, how scientists make use of their nice "pillar" to instruct further science. Then secondly, and most crucially especially to to non-scientists (i.e. the vast majority of people in the world), how we understand and use this "pillar" to instruct the future of humanity.<br /><br />Keeping these two important distinctions separate from the outset should help keep this discussion less muddled imho.tarrastwohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12302230646948851960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046071861494986299.post-20711810282838867092013-01-04T11:38:56.992-08:002013-01-04T11:38:56.992-08:00My interpretation of the use of "Nature"...My interpretation of the use of "Nature" in the C&I piece was that of the physical interactions and laws that permeate throughout the Universe, regardless of human involvement or not. Thus, the effects of AGW, GMOs and vaccines are determined by these "Natural" physical laws, which is what is then measured. The human origin is irrelevant when discussing their physical behaviour in "Nature". I think Cox (or someone else maybe!) used the concept of primacy of measurement in commenting on another blog regarding this issue. If anywhere, the human structures in science surely surround the issues you raise in the final two paragraphs?<br /><br />I also think that when C&I argue that decision makers must "understand in detail what they are disregarding, and be prepared to explain with precision why they chose to do so", they are cautioning against the casual misuse or non-use of evidence by politicians. I'd support the general principle being argued here- anyone should be free to disregard scientific findings if they feel to do so is correct. However, they should be clear as to why- i.e. they believe moral, political or economical reasons take precedence in this case. This stands in contrast to the referencing of unfounded, unpublished or non-existent "evidence" by politicians. I don't think Cox and Ince are calling for detailed, scientific counter arguments but clarity in why the argument is being made.<br /><br />I hope this makes some sense...!<br /><br />Al (@AWTaylor83)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com