[bandwraith at aol.com]

Clarifying my position a bit, I guess I would say that science sometimes seems to legitimize itself by appealing to mathematical formulae, as if those were somehow the key to the real relationships between the phenomenon under scrutiny. The mathematics itself, however, while true from a logical perspective, might not reflect reality, which can be damn arbitrary. It is in that sense- the overly exhuberant faith in mathematics- that I'm suggesting science may be open to criticism, and why I found malign's comment that criticizing science is like criticizing algebra, to be interesting. Math and Science both have a stake in the description of reality, and they are both self-correcting, either through logical or empirical testing, and they are somehow co-dependent, but they resist being equated, and must stand on there own.



-----Original Message-----
From: bandwraith <bandwraith at aol.com>
To: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Wed, Apr 17, 2013 10:25 am
Subject: Re:


I don't necessarily accept your somewhat arbitrary division of mathematics into "the realised and the counterfactual." I don't assume mathematical Platonism, I was criticizing it. I'm fine with Constructivism/Intuitionism, but most mathematicians and scientists, whether they admit it or not, are Platonists- it's just more convenient to accept The Law of The Excluded Middle.
 
I'm also fine with the empirical nature of science. It's the dependence of science on mathematics, especially a Platonic based mathematics, that bothers me. A physical theory can be thoroughly vetted from a logical/mathematical point of view and turn out to be wrong. The adjustments then made by scientists to accommodate the "new reality" may inspire new mathematics, so maybe the two are co-dependent. Any new mathematics, however, will be proven true or false or undecidable according to the rules of logic, which do not demand the specification of initial events, so necessary for an empirical explanation of reality. Platonism remains outside of time- no beginning, no end. It can't determine initial events, that can only be done empirically, by measurement.

You can test a scientific theorem by doing an experiment and refine a law of physics with the outcome. I'm fine with that. Attempting to prove a mathematical theorem experimentally- with a quantum based computer- might be dragging us over the bleeding edge. I would say you are still doing physics. You would still have to arbitrarily set the initial starting point of the computation. I'm also fine with the notion of computation as a physical process- as an aid in studying mathematical processes- no problem. I'm not sure that all mathematical truths can be determined by physical computation, however.


-----Original Message---
From: Prashant Kumar <siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com>
To: alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>; bandwraith <bandwraith at aol.com>; pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Wed, Apr 17, 2013 12:12 am
Subject: Re:


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. 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/ca81e867/attachment.html>