Evidence for God from Science

Rational is another word for the "familiar", as William James said. Most of the times a new "scientific discovery" was made because someone thought "illogically" based on what people of his era thought. Would you agree on that?

Makes sense to me, so would thinking outside the square be irrational?


Dan

Take for example the "logical" theory of gravity.
It came into... existence in an era where instant long distance forces were not even in science fiction. The idea was purely irrational for the time!
The fact that we think that it is logical is because we have learned to think that way.

skakos wrote: Most of the times a new "scientific discovery" was made because someone thought "illogically" based on what people of his era thought. Would you agree on that?

Not necessarily. Scientific discoveries, as you say, are often made because someone thinks "illogically". So if you want to make scientific discoveries, it is "logical" that you should think "illogically".

sandy_mcd wrote:

skakos wrote: Most of the times a new "scientific discovery" was made because someone thought "illogically" based on what people of his era thought. Would you agree on that?

Not necessarily. Scientific discoveries, as you say, are often made because someone thinks "illogically". So if you want to make scientific discoveries, it is "logical" that you should think "illogically".

Now I am confused.

There is a big difference between thinking "illogically and thinking outside the box and using innovation. Scientists don't have to go against the grain to be innovative. Nor does going against the grain automatically make what they do good. Scientists take ideas and try their best to find evidence to support those ideas, or they delve deeper into already-existing ideas. There is no required amount of "illogical" thinking to make a discovery.

So how would you say imaginary numbers were "discovered" ?

Mathematics is not a science. Mathematics are an entirely human-made concept with no basis in nature or the like. You can't compare biology or chemistry to math.

Ivellious wrote:Mathematics is not a science. Mathematics are an entirely human-made concept with no basis in nature or the like. You can't compare biology or chemistry to math.

I honestly can't tell, are you being facetious?

Not at all, Byblos. Science is a method of taking things from the world around us and explaining it to the world around us. Mathematics is a human made concept used to define certain aspects of our thinking. For example, the laws of chemistry are defined by examining the world around us and figuring out how matter interacts with other matter. Geometry is defined by how we analyze shapes.

I would put it this way: Mathematics is a human-made universal language for describing the world around us through science. Gauss once said that Mathematics was "the queen of sciences", not because it IS a science, but rather because it was the medium through which scientists explain things. They go hand in hand, but are separate in how they apply.

Ivellious wrote:Not at all, Byblos. Science is a method of taking things from the world around us and explaining it to the world around us. Mathematics is a human made concept used to define certain aspects of our thinking. For example, the laws of chemistry are defined by examining the world around us and figuring out how matter interacts with other matter. Geometry is defined by how we analyze shapes.

I would put it this way: Mathematics is a human-made universal language for describing the world around us through science. Gauss once said that Mathematics was "the queen of sciences", not because it IS a science, but rather because it was the medium through which scientists explain things. They go hand in hand, but are separate in how they apply.

Without human beings, are two apples and two apples equivalent to four apples?

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Without human beings, are two apples and two apples equivalent to four apples?

This is another pointless discussion which has been around for centuries and which will never end. You can Google this and find whatever opinion you want. Ivellious is right, according to standard definitions, i.e., mine. The properties of atoms are fixed by their existence. These properties can be discovered. Mathematics is a system of logic based on axioms. Certain types of mathematics (certainly not all) can be used to describe the physical world.
Without human beings, the question above is meaningless. What is an "apple"? Who would be asking this question?

PS Please show me a picture of i apples, where i is the square root of -1.

sandy_mcd wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Without human beings, are two apples and two apples equivalent to four apples?

This is another pointless discussion which has been around for centuries and which will never end. You can Google this and find whatever opinion you want. Ivellious is right, according to standard definitions, i.e., mine. The properties of atoms are fixed by their existence. These properties can be discovered. Mathematics is a system of logic based on axioms. Certain types of mathematics (certainly not all) can be used to describe the physical world.
Without human beings, the question above is meaningless. What is an "apple"? Who would be asking this question?

PS Please show me a picture of i apples, where i is the square root of -1.

Or you could answer my question first.

Byblos wrote:

Ivellious wrote:Mathematics is not a science. Mathematics are an entirely human-made concept with no basis in nature or the like. You can't compare biology or chemistry to math.

I honestly can't tell, are you being facetious?

A standard reference http://www.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/file ... wigner.pdf

Ivellious wrote:Not at all, Byblos. Science is a method of taking things from the world around us and explaining it to the world around us. Mathematics is a human made concept used to define certain aspects of our thinking. For example, the laws of chemistry are defined by examining the world around us and figuring out how matter interacts with other matter. Geometry is defined by how we analyze shapes.

I would put it this way: Mathematics is a human-made universal language for describing the world around us through science. Gauss once said that Mathematics was "the queen of sciences", not because it IS a science, but rather because it was the medium through which scientists explain things. They go hand in hand, but are separate in how they apply.

I have no problem with Gauss classifying mathematics as a medium through which science can explain and be explained. That's a far cry from calling it a man-made language.

sandy_mcd wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Without human beings, are two apples and two apples equivalent to four apples?

This is another pointless discussion which has been around for centuries and which will never end. You can Google this and find whatever opinion you want. Ivellious is right, according to standard definitions, i.e., mine. The properties of atoms are fixed by their existence. These properties can be discovered. Mathematics is a system of logic based on axioms. Certain types of mathematics (certainly not all) can be used to describe the physical world.
Without human beings, the question above is meaningless. What is an "apple"? Who would be asking this question?

PS Please show me a picture of i apples, where i is the square root of -1.

Not pointless at all. It is no different than stating chemical truths such as 1 oxygen atom and 2 hydrogen atoms combine to form H2O. Or the biological truth that an animal uses ATP for energy and produces ADP in the process. Or the physical truth that objects of different weight fall at the same rate. These chemical, biological, and physical truths are self-evident, irrespective of any human existence. In fact, they preceded it by billions of years. Same with mathematical truths, they are discoverable, not man-made.