Re: [ATM] Mathmatic's and Imagination

["Mark D. Holm" <mdholm@telerama.com>]

>I just wish I knew
> why the "Higher-order Physics[calculas]" can at times
> "seem to contradict itself", in other words,, [from what i understand],
> Why does this form of math say it can explain the
> "speed of a spinning galaxy"on one hand, then turn-around and say
> its too-heavy for that speed, and it should fly-apart?, and both
> calculations be correct!??,,
> Its beyond my Comprehension!!
> I wish I knew the answer!!

Aha! You have found the pointed end of the stick!  Mathematics and science are
not the same thing at all.  A whole lot of people come away from their rather
poor public school introduction to science thinking that scientific truth is
deduced.  This idea is just flat wrong.  Mathematics is deduced.  That is, you
start from a given, and in the real world of math, formally and rigidly defined
set of assumptions, and deduce all the rest.  Science starts from the radically
opposite position.  Before a real scientist can make any progress at all,
he/she has to come to the very personal realization that he knows exactly
nothing and can assume exactly nothing about anything!  This is such a
tremendous stumbling block that most people (including many who call themselves
scientists) never can do it or understand it.

Once you realize that you know exactly zero, you begin to figure out how you
might learn something.

I will use the example you cite. (I don't know if it is a correct statement of
current knowledge, but, for this purpose, it doesn't matter.)  If we have a set
of observations and some well developed and well substantiated theories that,
combined, lead to a paradoxical result, then somewhere, something about our
construction must be wrong.  Top grade scientists (not me, I'm a low level
grunt.) spend their whole careers trying to find exactly this sort of paradox. 
Why? Because if you can figure out a good answer, you can usually push the
boundaries of knowledge.  Where are the answers to be found?  Usually, it
involves a combination of two or more of the following:

1. You don't have enough, or good enough observational or experimental evidence
to lead you in the right path.  (A related and very serious problem is how to
analyze imperfect and incomplete data in the most informative and truthfull
way.)

2. You don't understand the current theory well enough to decide whether the
observations are really paradoxical.

3. You are at one of those special points where the current theory fails, and a
new form of understanding is required.

Number three is the one that gets Public TV to devote hour long programs to you,
so it is the one people think of most often.  Reality is that numbers one and
two are far more common, and are an absolute prerequisite to three.  This is so
true, that if you attempt to jump to three without adequate effort on one and
two, and you haven't got tenure yet, you are likely to find yourself employable
only at Whatsamata U.  A whole lot of very fine scientists spend their whole
careers on number one, occasionally dabble in number two and never get near
number three.

Before I quit, I should say that there is a possiblity zero.  It is right back
where I started: you don't know squat!  It sounds bad, but it can be
tremendously exciting!  This, for example is about where Mars science was
before Mariner 9, and wasn't much better off after!  Scientists really hate
possibility zero because it pretty much garantees that you will never get on
Public TV.  Some, e.g. Percival Lowell, start down the right path, but get
discouraged by lack of progress and start to overinterpret their observations.
(This can get you on Pubic TV, but usually only after you are dead, and some
young smartass, who hasn't even got the respect to wear a tie, will be
explaining to the audience exactly when, where and how you screwed up.)  In the
case of Mars, scientists have been so put out about their ignorance, that they
extort hugh sums of money from politicians in order to launch probes when that
money out to be put to good use here on earth buying beer for underemployed
chemists!

Mark Holm
mdholm@telerama.com



_______________________________________________
ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/