[Prashant Kumar]

I of course agree that science needs critics, critics who look at its
cultural *as well as* conceptual dimensions. My point is just that in doing
so, we have to respect the conceptual divides which obtain in science.

As to comments above on mathematics, mathematics is *not* independent of
science. Physical theory relies on mathematics, and if we accept results
following from physics, then we need to admit that mathematical structures
have some empirical
basis<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/>.
Let's take this argument further still, and say that mathematics which
isn't invoked in physics constitutes a giant archive of (unrealised)
possibilities. In other words, one can argue that *quantitative* *
representation* is contingent, and divides into the realised and the
counterfactual. In such a picture, mathematics is a formalised way of
making counterfactual statements about physical reality. This a variant of
Constructivism, and is counter to the mathematical Platonism you seem to
assume, bandwraith. Now, the truth statements made in mathematics are of a
different class than those made by science: mathematical truths which do
not have empirical basis are riffs on reality. And, all of mathematics is
just possible (counterfactually speaking) physics. The concept of rigor
goes out the window, since it is easy to make rigorous statements if they
are epistemic, rather than ontic. The truth criteria of science and maths
are, in the account just given, incommensurable.

This opens up an interesting possibility. Consider quantitative truths
which *do* have some basis in reality; that is, they describe some physical
phenomenon. Well, why can't we test a theorem by doing an experiment? If
theorem T_1 is true, then phenomenon P_1 will occur, else P_2. In quantum
physics, it is now possible to conceive of a kind of quantum computer which
could prove theorems through experiment, in just this fashion. The subtle
cheat is that we are not proceeding inductively, but deductively. Indeed,
parts of string theory (the sci am article I linked in the gravity thread;
"the thing" is called AdS/CFT) have been tested in a similar fashion.

Prashant


On 17 April 2013 11:36, <bandwraith at aol.com> wrote:

> Interesting you should mention that. Arguing against "science" is like
> arguing that there's no such thing as gravity. Which is fine to do, but
> what is the counter-explanation for all the phenomenon that General
> Relativity explains? Until one comes up with a better explanation, GR
> stands. That's the beauty of science. Unlike religion, it's open to
> challenge. There is a backdoor way to attack the scientific process,
> however, that is less boneheaded, and that's to attack the language, after
> Gallileo, in which it finds expression- mathematics, which is often taken
> for granted. Statistics is the obvious but not the most fundamental
> example. Many scientific hypothesis are accepted or rejected on the
> strength of a statistical analysis of measurements of some kind. The
> assumptions behind statistical validity can be faulty, but science protects
> itself from this by admitting that possibility and allowing for
> reinterpretation and possible rejection of previously accepted results. The
> final description however will still generally be in mathematical terms.
> Biology, which has resisted this trend for a long time, in favor of a
> purely descriptive approach, is also becoming more and more computational.
> And even if biological meaning demands a qualitative framework, many of the
> techniques involved in biological science are heavily dependent on
> mathematical inferences.
>
> But Mathematics is completely un-empirical and completely independent of
> science! Truth, as it is understood mathematically, does not require a
> single empirical observation. It is a purely logical exercise, and much
> more rigorous in its proofs than science. Mathematics would never settle
> for an empirical proof. It may be that reality, in a scientific sense,
> happens to be perfectly congruent and consistent with a mathematical
> description, but that possibility is not a given, otherwise String Theory,
> for example, would be true on the basis of mathematics alone.
>
> Furthermore, mathematics itself, as Pynchon has humorously indicated, is
> by no means a closed case- with all its questions locked up. Science, by
> keeping close to the empirical, avoids these problems. It is a question
> that is suggested by the current cover of The Bleeding Edge- the vanishing
> point- where all dichotomy comes to a final resolution, in this case, the
> divide between description and the described, or, epistemology and
> ontology. Choose your complementary terms.
>
> In the end it is a question of how we know. Mathematics, the chosen
> language of science, is as close to art and music and poetry, as it is
> to dirt and air and stardust- and just as prone to flights of fantasy.
> Algebra is perfectly logical. No such proof exists for reality.
>
> p.s. Anybody made it to The Museum of Mathematics yet? Worth the trip?
>
>      http://momath.org/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: malignd <malignd at aol.com>
> To: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Tue, Apr 16, 2013 5:59 pm
> Subject: Re:
>
> This is a smart post with which I agree.  I would add that science is a
> method -- of investigation and discovery.  To rail against science is like
> railing against algebra.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prashant Kumar <siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com>
> Cc: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Mon, Apr 15, 2013 7:36 pm
> Subject: Re:
>
>  So, a couple of things; a two-step if you like: reification and
> generalisation.
>
>  First: science is not a contiguous set of practices. It is not
> monolithic, and therefore its meat and method is not isolable in the way
> our dear interlocutors have presumed. So, whatever you say about the
> ethical colour of man or machine depends peculiarly on man, machine, and
> the way the former uses and is changed by, the latter. *See also*:
> technologies of the self. Variegated of course by a soupcon of historicism.
>
>  What I'm saying maybe does seem irrelevant, but consider that the kind
> of science we get -- from methods to what specifically is studied, and how
> -- depends on the medley of personalities, funding and need one finds in
> modern scientific contexts. To call it "science" and then sort it into the
> right morality-bin is to discuss a  *popular, a layman's, version* of
> science. It's fine, but don't expect such an analysis to say anything about
> "real science". Prejudice, greed, and the fleshandblood motivations of
> modern scientists are *indispensable *to discovery. *See also:* *Against
> Method 4th ed., *Paul Feyerabend.
>
>  To say "science gave us computers" is to say quite literally nothing.
> How? What sequence of discoveries produces a computer? and, now, should I
> permute the order? What then? One more: how can we be sure of
> counterfactuals: *"**devices which wouldn't exist were it not for
> science." *?* *This is a stronger statement than it appears. Is science a*
>  *unique historical process, with equally unique material correlates? *See
> also:* *Historical Ontology, *Ian Hacking.
>
>  Let me say as well, this discussion calls on a particularly Western
> suppressed premise: the moral rectitude of progress itself. So what if we
> don't have computers? Fuck 'em.
>
>  And now to generalisation. I'm sure you see where I'm going by now, so
> let me just say this. The choices scientists are presented with, and the
> decisions which they make, differ in substance between disciplines. And
> technological innovation from scientific discovery *is a process distinct
> from science itself.  **See also:* You figure it out...
>
>  P
>
>
> On 16 April 2013 08:04, alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I didn't say anyone attacked me. I don't think anyone did.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Rev'd Seventy-Six <revd.76 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>  "...rather than argue against what I've argued, which is, that science
>>> is the new religion, the greatest risk to life on Earth, the P-Lister
>>> elected to distort my argument and recast it as an atack on people who work
>>> in science or scientists."
>>>
>>>  For starters, it wasn't an attack on you personally; point of fact, it
>>> wasn't an attack at all.  It was a ramble and probably poorly written,
>>> sparked by confusion which caused me to ask you to clarify your position--
>>>  which I couldn't quite tell was farcical or not, considering we're having
>>> this little chat on devices that allow to communicate over vast distances
>>>  --devices which wouldn't exist were it not for science.  For as many
>>> hazards as you might argue science has produced, it has produced an equal
>>> number of benefits.  I don't see it as being particularly sacred, but I do
>>> think it's taken an unfair number of knocks over the last little while
>>> because there's this weird tendency to characterize a vast, fascinating
>>> field encompassing a scintillating number of disciplines as somehow being
>>> Against Humanity.  In P there's a certain cautiousness throughout to the
>>> uses of science, and that's what I thought we were discussing, not whether
>>> or not capital-S science were going to stomp us with Karloff size twelves
>>> for our failure to be god-fearing enough.
>>>
>>>  You've again stated science is the greatest risk to life on earth,
>>> which I don't hold to be any more or less true than the statement that
>>> human greed is the greatest risk to life on earth.  We're at an impasse, is
>>> all.  Not a matter of fault if we disagree.  Again, sorry for any offense.
>>>
>>>  -David
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130417/f077fe85/attachment.html>