tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5870077003894840138.post1199033707743097484..comments2023-10-07T02:16:16.507-07:00Comments on The Primate Diaries: Calculating FaithEric Michael Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01272418277524164040noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5870077003894840138.post-70143999335980670662007-09-11T02:26:00.000-07:002007-09-11T02:26:00.000-07:00Hi Eric, thanks and incidentally logicians seem to...Hi Eric, thanks and incidentally logicians seem to tend towards madness, paradoxically (although that may suit me:) Anyway, the thing is, most religious people nowadays also accept the maths-and-science that goes into Mars missions and aeroplanes (and many of those who do like crystal magic and homeopathy also dislike religion), they too just want it to get its job done, in the real world. And name a religion that didn't begin as a heresy? Religions change just as much as science. People do just accept what priests say without the sort of thought that you've put in, and priests do say that they should; but people also read popular science that way, while science teachers may well just want their pupils to pass their exams. (Things are just not so simple:)Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5870077003894840138.post-17045570630162421912007-08-28T06:57:00.000-07:002007-08-28T06:57:00.000-07:00We've moved on a bit from the argument that "becau...We've moved on a bit from the argument that "because Aristotle (or Euclid or Pythagoras) said so it must be true". If a mathematical theorem is demonstrated to be wrong it's not going to be around much longer for practical applications in science. We can't have all of our Mars missions crash just to appease the mathematician who develops some new model. <BR/><BR/>Also, it was a joke! Mathematicians can be so sensitive.Eric Michael Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01272418277524164040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5870077003894840138.post-49773165048553811582007-08-28T01:52:00.000-07:002007-08-28T01:52:00.000-07:00You make some very good points, but one thing that...You make some very good points, but one thing that strikes me (as a mathematician) is that set theory (the standard foundation for the mathematical models of science) is presumed without evidence (by mathematicicans explicltly, and by scientists implicitly), on the basis of tradition and authority (although it was originally adopted for reasons that have since been shown to be misguided), bolstered by subjective feelings that might be inappropriate (such as the feeling that it makes sense to think of the infinite in a certain way, when the only ground for that is that the finite behaves in such a way). That is, to have such foundations just seems to be the way of human knowledge?Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.com