Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes

[Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>]

I meant to say,  quantitative and qualitative, logical etc representation of   and    not just qualitative.

---

From: Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "tara_athan@xxxxxxxxxx" <tara_athan@xxxxxxxxxx>; [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes

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

_________________________________________________________________
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)