Re: How much can science tell us about sculling?

Alexander Lindsay wrote:
"KC" <kc_news@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:gvmqtv$5c1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Carl Douglas wrote:

The following is a bit of nit-picking on my part, so don't take offense, or offence for that matter, please... :^)

But, if you are able to analyse the fundamental physical processes underlying those causes & effects, so that you come actually to understand from first principles which basic factors are at play & their mathematical inter-relationships, & if from that basic understanding you are able mathematically to predict outcomes, that's science.
I'd argue that the words 'physical', 'mathematical', and 'mathematically' can and should be removed from the above statement. Thus:

"But, if you are able to analyse the fundamental processes underlying those causes & effects, so that you come actually to understand from first principles which basic factors are at play & their inter-relationships, & if from that basic understanding you are able to predict outcomes, that's science."


You seem to be suggesting that it is possible to have a mathematics-free and physics-free branch of science. Physics-free perhaps; it depends on how exclusive is your definition of physics. Chemistry? Biology? But mathematics-free, no. I wonder what you are thinking of. Psychology? Social Science? I think if you look more closely you will find that even such "soft" sciences are now riddled with mathematics, and quite right too. Mathematics is the study of patterns, not just of numbers. If there is no pattern, there is no useful theory and no science.

Yes, mathematics is a fundamental part of most modern science, but it need not be a part of something for that something to be considered science. I know some people debate its veracity these days, but I like to go back to the simple scientific method. If you can follow it, then you're practicing, if at a rudimentary level, science.


Agreed. But without mathematics the method rapidly degenerates into creating new verbal myths.


1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.


Might I suggest that it is only at this stage - hypothesis formulation - that there may be a place for Charles' "a priori
reasoning and deductive logic". I am fairly sure that their inclusion anywhere else in the scientific method is better described as "prejudice"; there are too many examples of such reasoning leading to false ideas.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.


I would be intrigued to see an example of a quantitative prediction that did not involve mathematics.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

And how is the analysis of the results of these experiments to be carried out without use of mathematics? Do you have any examples of such an analysis?

-KC


Alexander



Excellent points, Alexander.

My objective was not really to suggest that math can be completely absent from modern science, for I don't believe it can. But I liked Sully's post that to me implied that a person (say a coach with no scientific education or background) can still apply the scientific method to his coaching methods, with little to no mathematics (save for a bit of arthimetic for quantifying speed over a distance, stroke rate, etc.) So in this example there's still some basic math, but in my mind, it falls short of "mathematically predicting" anything, or understanding "mathematical inter-relationships".

A simple example:
Step 1: Coach observes that of two otherwise very similar athletes, the taller one rows faster on the water.

Step 2: Coach forms a hypothesis that a longer stroke may be more effective, and thus faster.

Step 3: Coach applies the hypothesis by having shorter rower reach longer. Coach uses straws taped to gunwales to gauge length of stroke, & video analysis to verify longer stroke after the fact, & times several 1000k trials. Rower consistently covers 1000m 2 seconds faster with repeated trials.

Step 4: Coach applies new rowing technique to other athletes, sees similar improvements. Coach tells other coaches about his findings. Other coaches repeat his experiment & corroborate his findings.

Local community of coaches adopts new technique.

Now where this falls short in Carl's description of what qualifies as science, is that the coaches never asked nor pursued the question of *why* the longer stroke was faster. I agree that this is hardly comparable to what professional scientists are doing at the cutting edge of technology in any science discipline. But it does follow the basic scientific method, and it therefore is, at a very rudimentary level, science. Thus this is an example of how science can help one's sculling, even if one does not consider themselves scientists.

You don't need to be a maths genius to apply the basic rules of science to your benefit.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Your Communication Problems
    ... >>> Mathematics is not empirical science. ... >>> scientific method, which is essentially inductive and iterative. ... Let us say that science has provided them with the means to do their ... called "scientists". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How much can science tell us about sculling?
    ... are able mathematically to predict outcomes, that's science. ... Mathematics is the study of patterns, ... Coach observes that of two otherwise very similar athletes, ... even if one does not consider themselves scientists. ...
    (rec.sport.rowing)
  • Re: How much can science tell us about sculling?
    ... predict outcomes, that's science." ... Mathematics is the study of patterns, ... Coach observes that of two otherwise very similar athletes, ... Coach forms a hypothesis that a longer stroke may be more ...
    (rec.sport.rowing)
  • Re: Why did Richard P. Feynman say, "I love only nature, and I hate mathematicians"?
    ... Half of the scientific method is not the scientific method. ... airy theorising is complete science. ... (although a large part of it is what scientists have done). ... It would certainly rule out almost all mathematics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Why did Richard P. Feynman say, "I love only nature, and I hate mathematicians"?
    ... Half of the scientific method is not the scientific method. ... airy theorising is complete science. ... (although a large part of it is what scientists have done). ... It would certainly rule out almost all mathematics. ...
    (sci.physics)