nogods4me

I am sure all the girlies in Intro To Philosophy fawn all over you for your deep insights into the world. I think I am safe saying the rest of us think you're full of it.

Kermit

Math knowledge is part of what makes a computer successful, but the science behind the implementation of the computer is the other part. Math is not merely an abstraction, but can be intimately related to the science. Newton developed the calculus and the physics of motion and gravity at the same time. There is a theoretical mathematical foundation for computers as well as great deal of applied math in their design.

Kermit

The Dollar: seems to be concerned about all of the “new” problems that are introduced by new scientific discoveries. I would say that it is not the discoveries that introduce problems, but that way in which we use this new knowledge. He mentions “[t]he collapsing biosphere and the discovery of how to make hydrogen bombs . . .” We do have the power to do serious (perhaps fatal) damage to our world. We can also repair damage. What we will do is a real concern. We do not have too much knowledge, but rather too little.

The inherent problem is that we cannot know what all of the consequences of our decisions will be. It is possible that we will destroy ourselves in some surprising way. We do try to consider calamities. Experimentation with a new collider could construct particles that would destroy us? Nano particles could invade our bodies and kill us? (Ice 9, anyone).

Of course it is also possible that all life will be destroyed by a large meteorite strike in the next few hundred years and the only way the human race can survive is by developing the knowledge and technology to avert such a strike.

Keith&Co.

Too true, sorry. I was just arguing against The $'s idea that math is completely separate from science.

The Dollar

Mathematics is not completely seperate from science but the scientific method utilises mathematics not the other way around. A computer may be good at looking for primes but a mathematician of the future may make it a pencil & paper affair no matter the scale of prime. You don't need CERN if you could use a mathematical model to show whats there but it is a mathematical model not a scientific one. Science will destroy the user and it is clear to see it is doing. Denial, however, is very popular.

Oxymoron

<Snip>

beausoleil

Isn't that also an assumption before we worry about the scientific method causing extinction?

In fact, your opening post effectively suggests making an evidence based decision about whether making evidence based decisions is a good idea.

Suppose I abandon the scientific method for my own reasons. How are you now going to convince me to advocate everyone else giving it up too?

The Dollar

I'm not saying abandon its findings. The end of the human scientific enterprise is where real investigation of the discovery cascade of the scientific method can begin. But rather than investigate using science this knowledge should be investigated and using mathematics. How is it possible to avoid accidently using scientific principles you might ask? A council of mathematical experts could determine whether something was a scientific discovery and discard it. This would seem counterproductive on occasion but it is to safeguard the species from self-destruction. Eventually science would be forgotten and all progress would be through mathematics and chance.

uberhobo

Are you testing the waters for some sort of math-based cult/commune that you'd like to be the leader of?

The Dollar

No, the cult is science and it is destroying the world. Mathematics is open to all, even the crows count.