This is great. I briefly, superficially, got interested in Whewell via the history of induction, for reasons I need hardly elaborate. I kind of alluded to this elsewhere, but my impression was that the consensus was that Whewell was right to criticize induction (or: Hume was right) and the "inductive method" as the basis of the sciences was pronounced dead as a dormouse in the early twentieth century, as in Popper's famous pronouncements. But I guess I find myself wondering now if big data and AI aren't returning us to a much more inductive model, at least in some fields. Speaking extremely conjecturally as someone who knows nothing.
Also, temperature is such an interesting example. You don't just need to make it quantitative, you need to make sure that it's on a single scale, i.e., that heat and cold aren't separate forces but an instance of the same phenomenon, as many thought in the 16th c.
Interesting post! Though I'm not persuaded by Frege's line of attack, since it seems one could simply bite a bullet and say math isn't a science.
Incidentally, I find the breadth of your learning quite startling! The fact that you understand Fourier analysis, when coupled with your extensive knowledge of economics and philosophy, and when viewed in light of your training and fluency with English literature, is really quite something.
Impressive nonetheless! Puts to shame the stereotype that people who enjoy the humanities cannot do or enjoy math.
Is there anywhere I can look online to get more info (conveyed accessibly!) about how Fourier analysis could be used to come with an algorithm that would correct errors in the Ptolemaic model?
Good. This sort of naive induction is just so silly to me, but I think it points to our longing for understanding the logoi in the world. But without St. Maximus this is nigh impossible.
This is great. I briefly, superficially, got interested in Whewell via the history of induction, for reasons I need hardly elaborate. I kind of alluded to this elsewhere, but my impression was that the consensus was that Whewell was right to criticize induction (or: Hume was right) and the "inductive method" as the basis of the sciences was pronounced dead as a dormouse in the early twentieth century, as in Popper's famous pronouncements. But I guess I find myself wondering now if big data and AI aren't returning us to a much more inductive model, at least in some fields. Speaking extremely conjecturally as someone who knows nothing.
Also, temperature is such an interesting example. You don't just need to make it quantitative, you need to make sure that it's on a single scale, i.e., that heat and cold aren't separate forces but an instance of the same phenomenon, as many thought in the 16th c.
Interesting post! Though I'm not persuaded by Frege's line of attack, since it seems one could simply bite a bullet and say math isn't a science.
Incidentally, I find the breadth of your learning quite startling! The fact that you understand Fourier analysis, when coupled with your extensive knowledge of economics and philosophy, and when viewed in light of your training and fluency with English literature, is really quite something.
I’m a dilettante and a dabbler - and have many smarter friends who can correct me when I say something idiotic.
Impressive nonetheless! Puts to shame the stereotype that people who enjoy the humanities cannot do or enjoy math.
Is there anywhere I can look online to get more info (conveyed accessibly!) about how Fourier analysis could be used to come with an algorithm that would correct errors in the Ptolemaic model?
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1002/fourier-transform-for-dummies/72479#72479
A very nice post on stackexchange
Good. This sort of naive induction is just so silly to me, but I think it points to our longing for understanding the logoi in the world. But without St. Maximus this is nigh impossible.