So...guess I'm the new guy

[discordianpope]

when you take two chestnuts and describe them as two chestnuts you have already started doing the math though. You have identified a set - a mathematical object - and assigned a cardinality to the set. I think, my maths knowledge in't too good. In the very act of carving up reality into these sets of one things, two things, and tens of things, you are already doing the math though. And then when you add these sets together to get bigger sets of things (like chestnuts) you are doing more maths, whether you use numbers to describe the process or not. All this doesn't mean that science can't confirm mathematics though. Just because we didn't begin with an empirical basis for mathematics doesn't mean we can't use the success of science to say "Gee, I guess those mathematical intuitions must have been right, cos all this physics is basically mathematics and it seems to work pretty well!"

Trouble is, chestnuts in hand is pretty damned empirical, isn't it?

That's where Vinny is wrong. I actually, I think he is right about mathematics not being empirically testable, but I wouldn't say that it's all just assumed either.

See the above.

But its not "chestnuts in hand" its "one chestnut in this hand" and "one chestnut in the other hand" makes "two chestnuts". In moving from the "there is some stuff" to "there is one of this thing" you are already doing maths. Unless you think that mathematics can be proven empirically by the "there is some stuff" proposition then I'm gonna keep with my belief that it isn't empirically testable. I don't actually think that matters at all though.

[Cyberman]

How about holding one chestnut in one hand, adding another chestnut to it, then going up to someone and asking them how many chestnuts you're holding? They're not doing any maths, they're simply looking at your chestnuts (fnarr fnarr) and reporting back.

[Whateverist]

You have to have a prior concept of mathematics in order to give it any mathematical value.

Without knowing, or assuming 1+1=2, you could not make such a claim.

There was an African Grey parrot who could count things up to seven I think. Hold up a pair and he'd use the English word to name how many. (He could also answer questions regarding color and substance.) I have to wonder what kind of concept of mathematics he has.

http://youtu.be/7yGOgs_UlEc

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

when you take two chestnuts and describe them as two chestnuts you have already started doing the math though. You have identified a set - a mathematical object - and assigned a cardinality to the set. I think, my maths knowledge in't too good. In the very act of carving up reality into these sets of one things, two things, and tens of things, you are already doing the math though. And then when you add these sets together to get bigger sets of things (like chestnuts) you are doing more maths, whether you use numbers to describe the process or not. All this doesn't mean that science can't confirm mathematics though. Just because we didn't begin with an empirical basis for mathematics doesn't mean we can't use the success of science to say "Gee, I guess those mathematical intuitions must have been right, cos all this physics is basically mathematics and it seems to work pretty well!" That's where Vinny is wrong. I actually, I think he is right about mathematics not being empirically testable, but I wouldn't say that it's all just assumed either.

I'm not saying mathematical truths cannot be confirmed or supported by science. Or more properly, a posteriori knowledge or empirical observation (is science isotropic to empirical observation? I don't think so, but that's another subject).

But so far as "proving numbers and mathematical relations are valid through science", as Hoodie wants to prove, there has to be a hypothesis first. And you cannot make this hypothesis simply by observing the world. Numbers and mathematical relations don't exist in the world in the same way as the objects of scientific inquiry exist.

From this it's almost commonsensical to say that "proving math" lies outside the realm of science, because science, at least hard science, is fundamentally physical, and mathematical quantities and relations are non-physical.

I thought this was fundamental, commonsense knowledge. I can't believe it's being denied that science makes assumptions it cannot prove.

[Fryslân]

Hi there,

I'm new here too. I'm just wondering, what are you exactly looking for on this forum since you have all your answers? Not trying to be rude or anything, thats not what i'm here for.

Hope you can understand my confusion and maybe even talk if you're up for it.

I am from the Netherlands by the way, so excuse my spelling here and there.

[Cyberman]

Hi to you too. When you ask what are we looking for, are you addressing everyone here or simply the believers? Beacuse I think I can speak for pretty much everyone else that we're not looking for anything, at least not in any religious sense. We don't by any means have all the answers, nobody should be so arogant as to claim they have all the answers and you should steer well clear from anyone who does claim that. This is just a social network of generally like-minded people, mostly but not all atheists, all sitting back and discussing anything from religious points in general to our favourite food.

Your spelling is perfect, by the way. In fact I'd say that your grasp of English is far better than my Dutch will ever be.

[Jackalope]

I'm new here too. I'm just wondering, what are you exactly looking for on this forum since you have all your answers? Not trying to be rude or anything, thats not what i'm here for.

Can't speak for the thread's OP, but some theists come here to discuss theology in a forum where they're free to express views and ask questions without being bound by orthodoxy - something that many but not all theological forums do not permit. Everyone has their own reasons, and I personally wouldn't conclude that anyone thinks they have all the answers by virtue of being a believer (or non-believer, for that matter).

I am from the Netherlands by the way, so excuse my spelling here and there.

Your English and spelling are quite good. I would not have guessed that English is not your first language had you not said so.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Great video,if not faked. The video in and of itself is not credible evidence.

[Reforged]

The only thing I changed was putting "one" instead of "1" and "put with" instead of "add".

If I add one chestnut to a pocket already containing one chestnut what is the physical result and could you give it a numerical value?
Are you having some trouble doing this? Would you like help?

You have to have a prior concept of mathematics in order to give it any mathematical value.

Without knowing, or assuming 1+1=2, you could not make such a claim.

Are you saying numerical values were not assigned descriptively to physical objects before mathematics was refined?

---

I thought this was fundamental, commonsense knowledge. I can't believe it's being denied that science makes assumptions it cannot prove.

I really can't be bothered to look up "scientific theory" for you and explain why science as a rule doesn't make assumptions as opposed to a hypothesis made with what little information available that is not to be taken as a given but be used as an area of study so that we might learn more. I mean honestly. Even our more prominent and outspoken of theists grasp this basic concept.
Just to be clear I'm not saying mathematics is one of these unproven theories, it has more than enough proof behind it. If you don't think so why don't you give up the very concept of logic and mathematics and see how much better off you are. Honestly, go ahead and do it and see how well you do. Call it an experiment. It might make things like cooking, shopping, working, financing, time-keeping, map-reading or any form of activity that requires an intelligent individual to assign values to physical objects rather difficult but go ahead anyway and come back and tell us how maths and logic has no physical applications that prove its validity. Of course this also means you couldn't use any technology that had used mathematical specifications and formulas to theorize and develop it so I guess you'd be restricted to horse riding and cooking using an open fire. Oh and your clothes were made using machinery developed with mathematical precision so you'd need to burn them and get new hand-woven threads made by the illiterate and uneducated to make sure they're not counting while they do it. Perhaps you could go join the Amish while you're at it. Oh wait... no, even they use mathematics.
I'm sure your intuition will get you by just as well though. Do tell us how it went when you return.
Bye then. :-)

---

If only.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Everybody else is getting it. You're the only person here who is still confused.

Assumptions of the kind that is talked about in grade school is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about masters degree level stuff. Where epistemology and science meet. If there is such a thing as meta-science, the assumption of the validity of logic in the absence of scientific evidence is a consideration of meta-science and epistemology, or knowledge.

I honestly think you are just confusing two different concepts. I don't know how old you are, but this stuff just isn't covered in high school and freshman year in college. You just might be out of your depth. And I'm not saying this to be rude. I fully acknowledge that we all are at different stages in our education. We can't be expected to learn everything at once.