Talk:Quasi-empiricism in mathematics

NPOV

This article has a clear POV in favour of its subject. Wording like "frank admission" is hugely POV (who's saying this?). It needs to be rewritten in a more NPOV style, with more citing of sources. -- Anon.

~~I disagree with your example. The admission is that of the author of the sentence quoted immediately previously. It is a point of view but its attribution is clear. -- Also Anon

Related work

Earlier, I added in pointers to Chaitin, Wolfram, and Entscheidungsproblem as being apropos to this discussion.

Slogan 1: 'truth' is not known at the limits of abstraction; rather, 'truth' is found in reality. Thanks to Joel Orr.

Slogan 2: Why differentiate when you can integrate? JMS jmswtlk 16:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I just added a pointer to Interactive computation. See ACM Communications, July 2006, "Principles of Problem Solving" Peter Wegner and Dina Goldin.jmswtlk 14:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

References

Started to add these. I'm new at doing these, so if someone wants to help, please do. jmswtlk 19:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Let me just recommend doing this in the ordinary way that it's done in the outside world, as it's a lot less headache, and eyestrain, in the long run. Jon Awbrey 19:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Please point me to an example. The article has 6 that need to be resolved. jmswtlk 17:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources, for starters. jmswtlk 22:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the traditional schools

This article ought to agree with the sub-section of Philosophy of mathematics / Quasi-empiricism. In other words, neither the context nor the content of this article connote a fringe element, necessarily. jmswtlk 12:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify my remarks below and respond to what you wrote: I agree that it's not a fringe element. Quite the contrary, it's all quite interesting. But the medley of examples in this article, and the multiple characterizations of "quasi-empiricism in mathematics" that come with that, seem like a babble of voices to me. The two paragraphs you cite at philosophy of mathematics#quasi-empiricism are much more tightly focussed and appear authoritive. 89.217.26.56 (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary arguments?

What does this mean?

A primary argument is that whilst mathematics and physics are more frequently being considered as closely linked fields of study, this may reflect human cognitive bias.

Is it an argument *for* or *against* Quasi-empiricism? Why is this "primary" for the subject? Diego (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this seems to have high bogosity to me... Wcerfgba (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the overall thesis?

From this article, I can't even understand what "quasi-empiricism in mathematics" even means. Does it mean checking things by examples? By heuristic arguments? By computers? By authority? Is it randomness? Anti-rationalism?

The author of the article has grouped the following individuals together: Maddy, Wigner, Hamming, Putnam, Lakatos, Chaitin, Wolfram, Wegner. This looks like a grab-bag of different viewpoints just tossed together. What do they have in common besides saying that something else besides proof is important?

Who called it "quasi-empiricism" and decided it was a thing? Is there a citation for this? Does one of these authors survey the others and call it a movement?

Or has the synthesis first occurred in -- this article?

89.217.26.56 (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Unclear, very broad sentence

A primary argument with respect to quasi-empiricism is that whilst mathematics and physics are frequently considered to be closely linked fields of study, this may reflect human cognitive bias. It is claimed that, despite rigorous application of appropriate empirical methods or mathematical practice in either field, this would nonetheless be insufficient to disprove alternate approaches.

What does the second sentence mean?

Are "empirical methods" or "mathematical practice" supposed to be two distinct modes of thought that are being applied to physics and mathematics, respectively, or is it the other way around, or it it both being applied to both?

What am I supposed to imagine the phrase "alternative approaches" refers to? Excluded scientific hypotheses? Alternatives to rationality? I'm at sea here.

89.217.26.56 (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quasi-empiricism in mathematics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060101134749/http://www.cs.umaine.edu:80/%7Echaitin/lm.html to http://cs.umaine.edu/~chaitin/lm.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)