tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post4087961165607394717..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Mathematics and causal theories of knowledge and contentAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-28236622555012491982011-12-13T08:11:40.602-06:002011-12-13T08:11:40.602-06:00Nice post! List of colleges in Metro Manila offeri...Nice post! <a href="http://www.finduniversity.ph/mathematics-schools/national-capital-region/" rel="nofollow">List of colleges in Metro Manila offering mathematics course</a>sumairahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06131032240815841770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-78299931993899243222008-05-25T10:40:00.000-05:002008-05-25T10:40:00.000-05:00"Surely Newtonian physics provided an apparent (ap..."Surely Newtonian physics provided an apparent (apparent, because the physics turned out to be false) explanation of why the planets have approximately elliptical orbits. Moreover, a part of this explanation was a bunch of mathematical facts."<BR/><BR/>Newtonian physics provided a way to model the orbits of the planets. They provided a system that allowed us to predict the orbits, etc. But they did not explain the orbits. Science produces models, which we can check by observation. It doesn't explain.<BR/><BR/>Planets don't follow Newton's laws. Newton's laws are just tools for describing planetary motion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-74683461594960924702008-05-25T09:45:00.000-05:002008-05-25T09:45:00.000-05:00CG:The epistemological problem may not come up for...CG:<BR/><BR/>The epistemological problem may not come up for constructivists or formalists, but of course they face other problems.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>Surely Newtonian physics provided an apparent (apparent, because the physics turned out to be false) explanation of why the planets have approximately elliptical orbits. Moreover, a part of this explanation was a bunch of mathematical facts.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-78930529977210172212008-05-19T14:39:00.000-05:002008-05-19T14:39:00.000-05:00Is this necessary for constructivists about mathem...Is this necessary for constructivists about mathematics? Or even formalists? Admittedly both may reject as mathematical certain proofs and even certain claims. But they can explain the causation issue.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-23221118078244595882008-05-19T11:32:00.000-05:002008-05-19T11:32:00.000-05:00"Mathematical facts clearly enter into explanation..."Mathematical facts clearly enter into explanations."<BR/><BR/>They may provide useful models, that doesn't mean they provide explanations. Just because you can model something mathematically doesn't mean that the mathematics explains something.<BR/><BR/>The question of why mathematics is so helpful in modeling the physical world is an interesting one. However, it's different to say that mathematics explains the world, or causes? the world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com