albertlee Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 As in the title, it is a quote from Ernest Rutherford, the noble winner of chemistry in 1908,...... but what does "All science is physics and stamp collection." mean? Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntiMagicMan Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Rutherford was reffering to the fact that physics explains chemistry, chemistry explains biology etc. And the stamp collection bit was his way of making fun of scientists who just catologue stuff, like zoologists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted April 22, 2004 Author Share Posted April 22, 2004 I still dont get about the stamp collection bit........How does collecting stamps from of the post mails related to science?????? If without understanding, it really sounds a bit rediculous Any idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Like AntiMagicMan said, some scientists just collect things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntiMagicMan Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Stamp collectors like to catalogue their stamps. They may put them in order of date, in order of postmark, in order of colour, in order of reverse alphabet, but their main objective is to collect 'em all, to coin a phrase. Rutherford's derogatory use of the phrase was towards people working in such fields at the time such as geology, botany etc where there was less of a scientific culture, and more of a private hobbyist attitude. Of course these days those areas are perfectly respected scientific careers. In the time of Rutherford and before, those subjects were generally the preserve of the English nobility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J'Dona Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 However, nothing explains mathematics, and mathematics explains physics. It goes on the other way too. Biology explains psychology, which explains philosophy, which explains law... and then you're getting into the humanities instead of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntiMagicMan Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Well mathematics elucidates physics but doesn't explain it. Mathematics is just the study of the ramifications of assuming certain axioms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J'Dona Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 But physics is based on those... the methods used in mathematics cannot be reduced to rely on other fields. Physics has to draw from mathematics to explain certain phenomenon, like the change in gravitational field strength with distance, or any mechanics... these things can't be explained without mathematical formulae, even if they are a result of natural forces, just as you can't explain a chemical reaction without going into the physics between the interacting reactants even though the forces would make it happen anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Biologists think they are Bio-Chemists Bio-Chemists think they are Chemists Chemists think they are Physical Chemists Physical Chemists think they are Physicists Physicists think they are GOD GOD thinks he/she is a MATHEMATICIAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntiMagicMan Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 But physics is based on those... the methods used in mathematics cannot be reduced to rely on other fields. Physics has to draw from mathematics to explain certain phenomenon, like the change in gravitational field strength with distance, or any mechanics... these things can't be explained without mathematical formulae, even if they are a result of natural forces, just as you can't explain a chemical reaction without going into the physics between the interacting reactants even though the forces would make it happen anyway. You seem to misunderstand me. I could explain those concepts without using mathematics at all. Mathematics is just a tool used to express ideas. It is not fundamental to physics, it is however an incredibly useful tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 But physics is based on those... the methods used in mathematics cannot be reduced to rely on other fields. Physics has to draw from mathematics to explain certain phenomenon, like the change in gravitational field strength with distance, or any mechanics... these things can't be explained without mathematical formulae, even if they are a result of natural forces, just as you can't explain a chemical reaction without going into the physics between the interacting reactants even though the forces would make it happen anyway. No, one can explain a lot of physics without writing down an equation. It's just that math is a fast way to do it, and to do it quantitatively. Math is the language. But the math doesn't compel the physics; E=mc and E=mc3 are both valid equations and would satisfy any mathematician, and yet they do not represent reality. To draw an anlogy, the English alphabet and language didn't compel the works of Shakespeare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J'Dona Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 AH, I see what you're saying. Sorry, I was thinking in terms of the actual laws that governed them, sorry. However, not all of physics can be devoid of maths, just as not all of chemistry can be devoid of physics. Without maths, the laws of physics would still work, of course, but I'm not sure how anybody could explain it in a scientifically verifiable way, although perhaps how could, just as if we knew nothing of the paws of physics, chemists could still describe how chemicals reacted, but would not be able to explain why. Some parts of physics do not need maths to explain it (just look at any Stephen Hawking book for a sample of physics minus the maths). It's all very well to give a non-mathematical explanation, for example to say that the electrostatic force reduces as distance increases, as the distance between and the distance travelled by force carrier particles increases, and that the interaction in chemistry are determined by these and so on, but without actual mathematical formulae and statistics, this cannot be proven. Even the concept of changing distances or of an increase in something is mathematical; one cannot even produce relative physical laws to explain physics based on these, because it's all based on mathematical formulae and relationships. (e.g. to even say that a larger mass has more gravity suggests proportionality between them, which is a mathematical relationship) Perhaps unrelated, but here's a problem with the quote that thought up just as I was getting into bed... I got out to type this, maybe I shouldn't :/ Given that: "All science is physics and stamp collection," and also given that mathematics does not draw from any other fields like physics, and is certainly not stamp-collecting, this quote is basically saying that maths is not science. Since physics draws at least something from maths (in terms of explanation only), which is apparently non-scientific, it cannot satisfactorily explain the laws of physics from a scientific viewpoint, and thus all other branches of science are non-scientific, and all that remains of the quote is: "All science is stamp collection." Okay, I'm reaching and I know it's just a quote. Maybe I'm just too tired to set up a proper argument (though I'm apparently not tired enough to forget throwing in a disclaimer like this to save my skin, as I will surely need to). I've got to sleep now, so if someone responds I won't see it for about 16 hours... provided I'm not banned by then for posting such drivel that I even believe to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 Given that: "All science is physics and stamp collection' date='" and also given that mathematics does not draw from any other fields like physics, and is certainly not stamp-collecting, this quote is basically saying that maths is not science. Since physics draws at least something from maths (in terms of explanation only), which is apparently non-scientific, it cannot satisfactorily explain the laws of physics from a scientific viewpoint, and thus all other branches of science are non-scientific, and all that remains of the quote is: "All science is stamp collection." [/quote'] I agree with the notion that math isn't science. That isn't meant as a knock on mathematics. That you use math to explain physics doesn't change things. Math can be applied to many non-scientific endeavors. Again, with the analogy, it's the distinction between words and the ideas the words express. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainMan Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 Psychology can explain mathematics. Where do you think mathematics comes from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 Psychology can explain mathematics. Where do you think mathematics comes from? How can it describe mathamatics? Maths dosent come from anywhere as such, its jsut a language of numbers for describing the way in which the world behaves Physics is a number combined with letter way of describing it i suppose you can say........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J'Dona Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 I know I said that I'd reply later, but I saw this just breifly this morning and I'll try posting quickly now. You're right BrainMan... humans invented maths. Maybe it's philosophy then... I don't see how mathematics could not be considered science. The whole system of maths is basically of hypotheses eventually backed up by mathematical proof, universal laws etc., which is the best example of the scientific method that exists, as far as I know. Mathematics is the least subjective of all subjects because there is no way to argue against a mathematical proof, unless it's faulty. Dang, out of time, have to go now... While I'm gone, if someone could explain any aspect of physics without maths (as opposed to every, as you say), I'd concede the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntiMagicMan Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 Every action has an opposite and equal reaction. When white light passes through a prism it seperates into its seperate component colours. Want any more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 I don't see how mathematics could not be considered science. The whole system of maths is basically of hypotheses eventually backed up by mathematical proof' date=' universal laws etc., which is the best example of the scientific method that exists, as far as I know. Mathematics is the least subjective of all subjects because there is no way to argue against a mathematical proof, unless it's faulty.[/quote'] Mathematics laws are universal? Like parallel lines don't ever intersect. Oh, wait, that's true in Cartesian space, but not e.g. on a sphere. Science is inductive. Math is deductive. Science explains nature. Math explains itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J'Dona Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 "Every action has an opposite and equal reaction. When white light passes through a prism it seperates into its seperate component colours." Well, "opposite" and "equal" are mathematical terms. To say that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, is saying that every force has an another force of equal value, and an opposite sign. This does involve maths, since even the concept of equality or proportionality is mathematical. You can say that white light separates into its different colours in a prism without maths, that's true. But you can't explain why it does in the way it does without looking at the angles and using trigonometry. You can use a lot of different prisms and look at the way light comes out to get a good idea of the distribution for any prism you choose, but that will only be an approximation, not a law (the laws of refraction and reflection, which are based on angles and mathematics). "Mathematics laws are universal? Like parallel lines don't ever intersect. Oh, wait, that's true in Cartesian space, but not e.g. on a sphere. Science is inductive. Math is deductive. Science explains nature. Math explains itself." Parallel tangents on a sphere might never intersect, unless they did in the third dimension, but then they aren't parallel. I'm not quite sure what you mean here. :/ But, you're right about mathematics being deductive. I forgot that normally the scientific method is associated with finding evidence to back up a hypothesis, which, if sufficient evidence is found, might be labelled a theory. And science is inductive, and maths is a deductive, I agree. That last line is quite powerful. All I could say to argue is that science cannot explain nature without maths, or so I believe. One could made the argument that maths comes from philosophy or some such, which stems from psychology, which comes from biology, from chemistry, from physics... and therefore must be scienctific, but that doesn't change the whole fact that maths doesn't use evidence, which I hadn't thought of before. Anyway, I've got to go now (maths class). I'm going to have to think about that swansont. P.S. I'm not sure how to get quotes to work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntiMagicMan Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 If you keep changing the question then no one will be able to counter your argument. If you think that physics can be derived from mathematics, then you are wrong. If on the other hand you are saying maths is useful for understanding physics then I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 I don't think you'd be able to understand most of modern day physics without mathematics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J'Dona Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 Sorry AntiMagicMan... I get confused when threads get too long because I forget what happened at the start. :/ I'm not even sure which question I was asking, which is probably why it may have changed. I understand what you're saying now... I do realise that physics can't be derived from mathematics. Maths doesn't tell about the properties of molecules or why certain forces exist, to name a few things. Certainly, maths is useful for understanding physics, but it just seems virtually impossible to explain it without. Physics could be reduced to forces and physical properties, and the specific relationships would be unknown, even though they would still be there and observable (and even if general things like "Electrostatic field strength decreases with increasing distance" were intact). Just like, say, biology; if we knew nothing about chemistry we would still know how certain species would interact and that certain molecules. But we couldn't say why this vital vitamin is, exactly, so vital, and what part it plays in body chemistry, or why animals are attracted to one another because we wouldn't know about pheromones. Of course it's rather pedantic of me to classify anything that involves the concept of change as maths (like increases and equalities). But those concepts come up in any set of physical laws. Maybe I'm just classifying mathematics too broadly. I'm still willing to bet though that some parts of physics cannot be explained without any higher math at all. How would one explain those parts of quantum physics involving complex numbers without maths? I'm not an expert on it so you don't have to answer, of course... if you tried I'd cede the point immediately. You know what, ignore this whole post. I think I might have just changed the question again, though I don't know how. I should just keep quiet about these things in the future, or maybe just make shorter posts so that I don't lose the point. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntiMagicMan Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 Just be aware, I agree with what you are saying. It would be pointless trying to learn physics if you did not know maths. I was just saying that it does not follow that physics is derived from maths, which we both agree on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J'Dona Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 Right, we agree then. Based on everything that's been said, if maths isn't science as such, then I'd agree with the original quote. Except how it seems to say that stamp collecting anoraks are scientists. Joking, of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted April 24, 2004 Author Share Posted April 24, 2004 Finally, thx every one for the debate on arguing the definitions of science, that i learn alot from it...............as it makes my thread so valuable on understanding the Big Idea of Science Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now