To: | "tara_athan@xxxxxxxxxx" <tara_athan@xxxxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Wed, 1 May 2013 06:39:23 -0700 (PDT) |
Message-id: | <1367415563.89319.YahooMailNeo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Tara, In my opinion, Mathematics deals with qualitative, qualitative,logical etc derivatives kind of representation of the same, scientific occurrences.. Many scientific discoveries are proved used mathematical equations, even chemical components have some formula, graphical, numerical or mathematics representation as proof .. Further if you take a simple example, say water, vaporizing and H2O splitting into Hydrogen (2) and Oxygen. (1) molecules in a lab. Once you are done with the experiment and capture the results, you have to present it in proof format. So there is the actual occurrence or experiment, and it is written in a formula or proof format.... ( It all comes down to the same, actual occurrence in reality and an abstract representation, in words or formula, or mathematical equation or
graphical notations, or scientific equation etc..)! This is kind of simplistic explanation, but should get the point across. Pavithra From: Tara Athan <taraathan@xxxxxxxxx> To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 8:04 AM Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes On 5/1/13 8:43 AM, Kathryn Blackmond Laskey wrote: > Occam does not constitute scientific disproof Proofs (and "disproofs") are possible in mathematics, but not in science. At best, there is more or less evidence to support a hypothesis relative to its alternatives. Traditional statistics are sometimes used to support rejecting a null hypothesis, but this does not constitute a proof. Others have argued that such statistical conclusions don't belong in science, and Bayesian estimates of the credibility of hypotheses are more appropriate. Certain Bayesian methods incorporate Occam's razor mathematically by, in effect, applying a penalty to models with a greater number of parameters. (I provide a Wikipedia reference as a link to further resources, not as a reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_information_criterion). Tara _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes, William Frank |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes, Pavithra |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes, Tara Athan |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes, Pavithra |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |