Scientific Communication and the Use of Mathematics

[altonhare]

I have noticed a serious communication barrier in some of my efforts in this forum. Also, in general, modern scientists pay no heed at all to consistent and clear communication. It is because of this neglect that science is in such a dismal state today and losing ground to religion. To these ends, I have tried to make my method of communication clear in this post. It is my hope that these ideas will decrease communication difficulties and improve scientific progress on this forum.

Most of us learn all we need to know about scientific communication around 3rd grade. This is unfortunate because almost everyone forgets it by the time they are taking serious physics classes. The issue of scientific communication is the most important one of all because, without clear communication, there is simply no science. Nobody has a valid theory when nobody knows what anyone is talking about.

Fortunately, the rules for clear communication are relatively easy. This discussion will obviously discuss scientific communication in the context of the English language. Nevertheless the principles of consistency and unambiguity apply to any method of communication. Lets discuss the relationship between the four basic building blocks of a sentence:

Noun: Divided into two categories, "concrete nouns" are those words that refer to that which has both shape AND location. That is to say, they exist. "Abstract nouns" are words referring to that which has shape but NO location. For instance, the word truck is always a noun but it may or may not have location. If it does it refers to an object in the set of concrete nouns and is said to "exist". If it is an imaginary truck then it is an abstract noun that refers to an abstract object, an object we can mentally visualize. Such a truck cannot be said to exist because it lacks location. I cannot establish a distance between the surface of my hand and the imaginary truck in my mind. We can only visualize objects two dimensionally, therefore all abstract objects are two dimensional. Additionally, all abstract objects are intangible. You try to touch a square but you only touch paper and ink. The square is a figure that refers to something you are imagining in your mind. Geometry is the study of abstract objects and physics is the study of concrete objects.

Verb: Modifies a noun only. Must proceed the noun it modifies. May not modify abstract nouns.

Adjective: Modifies a noun only. May proceed or preceed a noun, but either way may modify a noun only. Hence the ruler (concrete noun) is (verb) straight (adjective). However, the statment "I (concrete noun) run (verb) straight (adjective) is nonsensical. It says that I run like a ruler. The adjective is attempting to modify the verb. If I wish to express that a human that is straight like a ruler runs, I would say "The straight human runs". Now straight modifies a noun.

Adverb: Modifies a verb ONLY. Humans (concrete nouns) run (verb) infinitely (adjective) implies that the running is infinite in extent, which is nonsensical. Only an object can have extent. Humans (concrete nouns) run (verb) incessantly (adverb). Incessant describes the running, specifically the duration of the running. The human is not incessant, that would be nonsensical, it says a human never stops. Never stops... what? Humans (concrete nouns) run (verb) daily (adverb). Daily describes the running, specifically its frequency. Humans (concrete nouns) run (verb) rectilinear (adverb). Rectlinear describes the running. Replace it with straight and you describe the human. That's fine if you want a straight human to run, but not if you want the human to run rectilinear. Adjectives vs. adverbs represent the vast majority of egregious languge errors committed by mathematical physicists.

Is this trivial and pedantic? Perhaps it once was, but today these rules are so widely ignored that it has led science down a dark and dangerous path. In everyday speech we do not follow these words and it is fine, we can get our meaning across. But science demands more rigor and consistency than a chat at a bar over beers. Scientists have taken everyday language and used it in scientific discussion, to great peril. This is a reason science is losing ground to religion.

The greatest peril has come in the study of mathematics. To understand why this is we must understand the word that is at the heart of mathematics: number. Mathematics is the study of numbers as physics is the study of concrete objects. First off we recognize that the word "number" refers to a general class of words that indicate "quantity". When we say "four" we are indicating a quantity of something. How do we indicate a quantity? We count. Ask a 5 year old how many apples she has before her and she will say,"One... two... three... FOUR! Four apples." Most of us learned this even before we learned basic grammar. This is unfortunate because nobody thinks about what "four" really means anymore. The dictionary says that it's a noun, but does this make sense? Can we construct a sensible sentence with "four" in it as a noun? Let's try:

"Four ran to the store"

Err, four what? The sentence lacks a noun for "ran" to modify. Unless we actually think the symbol "4" can perform an action.

"Four added eight"

Err, really? The symbol 4 found 8 and transformed itself into a 12? Obviously, for the purposes of scientific communication, numbers simply cannot be nouns. They cannot DO anything. In everyday conversation how do we use the word number?

"Dave carried four apples"

"Write a four"

The second sentence makes sense with four as a noun, but it simply refers to the symbol "4" itself. It's just a figure on a piece of paper. In a scientific discussion we usually aren't interested in a number as a noun. The first sentence is more interesting, "four" is used as an adjective. Dave is the noun modified by the verb. The noun "apple" is modified by four. Is a number a description? Is it an adjective? Indeed the dictionary does mention that it is also an adjective. This seems good. We use other adjectives to indicate quantity:

"The big tree swayed"

"The vast feast exploded"

However, these kinds of adjectives are fundamentally different than a number. They are subjective. So are "long, fat, and high". A number is inherently objective. If there are four apples before you, can someone else say that there are three? Is anyone entitled to quantify a collection of objects with any number they choose? This is wholly untenable in science, which distinguishes itself from everyday speech and religion by objectivity and consistency. The observer's PERCEPTION should not change the reality. Adjectives that describe quantity are all inherently subjective because they are all relative. If someone says the earth is big I can always say "No, Jupiter is big, earth is small". Indeed anyone can refer to any object as big, small, ugly, pretty, fat, skinny, or whatever. It is all a matter of opinion. The point of numbers is to eliminate opinion, to quantify objectively. To communicate scientifically we absolutely MUST be able to quantify objects in a way that is not a matter of opinion. So, for the purposes of science, what is "four"?

The word "number" is either a noun that refers to a symbol like "4" or it is the verb "to count". For example "Number these apples for me" means "count these apples". In a scientific context number is the verb "to count to X". The subset of words to which "number" references comprise "X". Therefore "4" in a scientific sentence implies "to count to 4". When I say "I carried four apples" I mean "I counted and carried four apples". The only way one can be certain of quantity is by counting, therefore "4" always implies that one "counted to 4". Therefore if one is to communicate scientifically a number may only be modified by an adverb unless the "count" verb is explicitly stated.

Mathematicians incongruously yet routinely use adjectives in their discussions when referring to numbers (as nouns, i.e. as objects!). A number is a noun only in a trivial sense (as a figure on a piece of paper or something we visualize). Four cannot run, jump, swim or play. Four cannot be straight or curved. In a nontrivial sense four is what something DOES, like the words "wave" or "wind". Usually the something is a person, and the doing is always counting. Every symbol in mathematics represents either a number or the modification of a number. Therefore, mathematicians may only use verbs (counting) and adverbs (modify counting) to discuss anything in the realm of mathematics. Objectively, mathematics is a field with no nouns. Physics is the study of concrete nouns and geometry is the study of abstract nouns (with their associated verbs and adjectives). This is why mathematics has no authority to tell us anything about physics or geometry. Mathematics deals exclusively with dynamic concepts. When they use adjectives they convert their verbs (what something does, often counting) into nouns (somethings) it misleads people to believe all kinds of crazy things! They get away with having absolutely no physical interpretation for their theory. It is exactly this problem that causes people to misuse and abuse the words "wave" and "field".

The word "wave" in common usage is a verb. Yet mathematicians routinely talk about what a wave does. They fool you into thinking there are "somethings" waving. This would be okay if they could point at the wave they are talking about or a movie of it. Alas they cannot point to that which is waving because their discipline has no "somethings". Mathematics alone can have no bearing on physics (i.e. existence) because there are simply no objects in the entire discipline. Yet 99.9% of the people in mainstream "physics" are mathematicians. All the relativists, quantum mechanics, and string theorists are building their theories of somethings out of nothings. This kind of behavior is often called "religion" or "lunacy". Similar arguments apply to the word "field" although the common usage of the word "field" is a noun and has nothing to do with the field of mathematics.

For mathematics to have any bearing on physics the mathematician absolutely MUST point at the objects that are counting and/or being counted and/or the locations being counted. Otherwise his theory is about nothing. Relativists cannot point to a model of space-time, quantum mechanics cannot point to a wave-packet, and string theorists cannot point to a one-dimensional string. None of these are theories of physics. In fact, they are not even theories of geometry.

If the mathematician bases his theory on abstract nouns it is a theory of geometry. If a mathematician's theory is based on concrete objects then it is a theory of physics. Math itself can tell us nothing about geometry or physics, it is merely a descriptive tool for these two disciplines. Any theory of mathematics which does not directly involve either physics or geometry is a theory of nothing, i.e. it is pure imaginationland. Mathematics has nothing to do with physics OR geometry.

[mague]

The pyramid run

Four groups of scientists climb a huge pyramid. Each side of the pyramid has a different color. Lets assume blue, green, yellow and red.

While climbing the pyramid each group communicates with the other groups by radio. Its is a huge effort to investigate the pyramid in a scientific way.

One group describes the pyramid as blue and the sun is rising in the east. The other groups cant accept this. They say its not blue and the sun rises somewhere else. Each group recognizes that the other groups have their points. They do agree that it has the shape of a triangle. They do agre that the angle from ground toward Z-axis is 45 degree. But they cant find a consensus on the color and direction.

Once the groups reach the top they do understand and laugh.

What went wrong ? They had scientific exchange of data and comunication. Still there was no consensus until the puzzle was solved. Would it have helped if some members of the teams would have climbed down and changed teams to understand the others point of view ? The result would be the same, but the solution would have dawned earlier.

[junglelord]

Exactly. Its all depth of perception and relative position to the pyramid.
Comparative Methodology still failing at that level to see the connection.
The way man is and the way we think is part of the problem.
The life work of one man may indeed be more of the puzzle, yet today would be rejected anyway due to the system.
At the same time that one man may find it hard to accept other revelelations due to his lifes work.
Others on the ground may see more and Comparative Methodology sometimes works better from the ground.
Thats my position and it seems to work best. Having communications with several team members high up on different sides and only I am able to use Comparative Methodology properly due to my position on the ground, not up in the sky.
It is the Ego that clouds the vision, no matter how clear it first came to someone. Those who can approach it and have an internal sense to reality that is free of ego is easier on the ground. Its better to know a smart man then to be the smart man, you tend to have less ego. I have enough time on the ground to see that the knowledge we all seek here is indeed knowledge and ultimately technology that is under national security. We are dumbed down from the time they put us in school. If you can peel back and re-define the terms, re-organize the dimensions and units, re-configure the basis of math and have several models offered up for sacrifice on the pyramid of truth you can see almost all the way to the top from all sides. I totally understand nanotechnology because I understand the relationships between structure and function and harmonics and envision matter phase shift materials in use by the industrial military complex. If I could create a material with a proper understanding of nanotechology via atomic structure and function that had inherit matter phase shift coupling that was harmonicly resonate, I could control a materials resonate phase from solid to plasma and back without the material being destroyed! Man would I have powerful technology. Put that in your plasma UFO pipe and smoke it.

[altonhare]

What went wrong ? They had scientific exchange of data and comunication. Still there was no consensus until the puzzle was solved.

- mague

The difficulty these poor misguided scientists are having has nothing to do with EASE of communication but rather the METHOD of communication. They are not communicating scientifically. They are not using the scientific method.

Each one simply describes an observation without making a hypothesis i.e. an assumption. Implicitly each scientist is working from an assumption but, in the scenario described, nobody discusses it. The assumption/hypothesis is the FIRST stage for a reason! They absolutely must ASSUME something about the nature of what they are climbing before making any observations/theories about it.

If they were following the scientific method they would be aware of the problem. Scientist "A" says "I hypothesize I am climbing a vast spherical solid". Scientist "B" assumes he is climbing an immense regular n-prism but cannot tell "n" from observation. Scientist "C" claims to be climbing a 3-faced pyramid. Scientist "D" claims to be climbing a 4-faced pyramid. Now the scientists proceed to theory/explanation. Scientist "A" observes "The surface is smooth in all directions, there are no edges, and the color is uniformly blue in all directions, this is consistent with a spherical solid". Scientist "B" observes the color is uniformly yellow in all directions and again observes no edges. Scientists "C" and "D" observe the same edgeless surface but with different colors. Then when the scientists proceed to the conclusion step the nature of the problem is clear. The observation of each scientist is consistent with the assumptions of each scientist. Therefore, who is correct depends on the validity of the assumptions themselves. The scientists recognize that the shape and size of what they are climbing determines what each scientist will see. Each theory is acceptable at this stage in the scientific method, there is no reason for any of the scientists to reject each other outright. What they can agree upon is that continued climbing may allow one theory or the other to be rejected. It is their HOPE that enough climbing will result in only a single valid hypothesis.

So, in the scenario described by mague, the only thing that went wrong is that the scientists did not follow the scientific method. They just made statements about observations with no hypothesis. They did not learn anything. They just disagreed with each other. That is not science.

[bdw000]

altonhare:
Mathematics alone can have no bearing on physics (i.e. existence) because there are simply no objects in the entire discipline. Yet 99.9% of the people in mainstream "physics" are mathematicians. All the relativists, quantum mechanics, and string theorists are building their theories of somethings out of nothings. This kind of behavior is often called "religion" or "lunacy". Similar arguments apply to the word "field" although the common usage of the word "field" is a noun and has nothing to do with the field of mathematics.

For mathematics to have any bearing on physics the mathematician absolutely MUST point at the objects that are counting and/or being counted and/or the locations being counted. Otherwise his theory is about nothing. Relativists cannot point to a model of space-time, quantum mechanics cannot point to a wave-packet, and string theorists cannot point to a one-dimensional string. None of these are theories of physics. In fact, they are not even theories of geometry.

If the mathematician bases his theory on abstract nouns it is a theory of geometry. If a mathematician's theory is based on concrete objects then it is a theory of physics. Math itself can tell us nothing about geometry or physics, it is merely a descriptive tool for these two disciplines. Any theory of mathematics which does not directly involve either physics or geometry is a theory of nothing, i.e. it is pure imaginationland. Mathematics has nothing to do with physics OR geometry.

I have seen more than a few posts here over the years expressing the same sentiment. I would guess that one major reason for many people being here is "the math problem."

Some memorable quotes from this site:

"math is no substitute for intelligence."

"math is the lubricant used to pound square pegs into round holes."

[altonhare]

Thanks bdw, that's exactly what I was expressing and you summed it up nicely.

A mathematician is an individual who confuses a hammer with a chair and a spatula with a hamburger. The mathematician studies the hammer and spatula only and thinks that he will find the secret to building a chair or cooking a hamburger. But a physicist grabs the hammer and goes to work trying different methods for building a better chair. Then he grabs the spatula and starts cooking hamburgers until he has found the best way to cook one.

Once the groups reach the top they do understand and laugh.

- mague

If they followed the scientific method then they do not laugh nor suddenly understand something new. They all understood what a pyramid was before they ever got to the tip, at the tip they reach conclusion. They conclude that the 4-sided pyramid hypothesis is most consistent with experience.

Others on the ground may see more and Comparative Methodology sometimes works better from the ground.
Thats my position and it seems to work best. Having communications with several team members high up on different sides and only I am able to use Comparative Methodology properly due to my position on the ground, not up in the sky.

- junglelord

I'm not sure this is such a great analogy. The best way to gain new information is to reach an edge on the pyramid (assuming nobody has actually reached the tip yet). If the pyramid is vast as described you will see nothing but an endless wall before you from the ground. In fact, you will have less chance of learning anything about the pyramid since the average distance from a person to an edge increases as one approaches the base.

[junglelord]

Math is just a form of communication...and like any language can be full of BS depending on who is talking.
At what point do we draw the line?
Its called the lie.
You have been lied to in many ways and after dumbing you down with "education" they force a false reality on you as an adult with their lies via fairy tale Harry Potter math and more brainwashing of many different avenues.

Expose the rot.

[bdw000]

Math is just a form of communication...and like any language can be full of BS depending on who is talking.
At what point do we draw the line?
Its called the lie.
You have been lied to in many ways and after dumbing you down with "education" they force a false reality on you as an adult with their lies via fairy tale Harry Potter math and more brainwashing of many different avenues.

Expose the rot.

Well said.

I find that most comments about math on this forum are worth printing out, including the ones in this thread.

I bet most of the good quotes were lost with the old forum, but it seems to me that a collection of all the math quotes would be a useful nugget.

[bdw000]

It suspect that math is sometimes used in physics like this (this is a V ERY general analogy):

A claim like this will be made: 2 apples + 2 oranges = 4 bananas

If you complain that the answer is silly, they point to "2 + 2 = 4" and say "how the hell can you argue with THAT ?"

And then they throw in an infinite amount of precsion, as if that actually proves the fundamental idea under discussion.

Of course, there is a massive epistemological chasm between "the math," and the answer "4 bananas." It is billions of light years across. Even though I am not qualified in any way to critique Relativity or Quantum mechanics, my suspicion is that they are pulling off the same sort of scam, hiding behind a flawless mountian of math to avoid having to prove some of the rediculous claims that they make.

[altonhare]

Even though I am not qualified in any way to critique Relativity or Quantum mechanics, my suspicion is that they are pulling off the same sort of scam, hiding behind a flawless mountian of math to avoid having to prove some of the rediculous claims that they make.

-bdw

Certainly some things like you mentioned happen. But mostly mathematicians like to point at nothing and call it something.

[webolife]

As a science AND MATH teacher, I affirm most of the above comments...
I would go so far as to say that any theory requiring for its proof or solutions the use of complex numbers
is not a suitable theory for explaining real stuff in the universe. Yet modern theories are full of such equations.
I would also caution that coincidental occurrences of certain numbers in nature does not prove anything in or of itself.
However repeated and persistent occurrence of such numbers should begin to knock down some walls of "chaotic" and materialistic worldviews that are rampant.