What qualifies as science?

exchemist said:
I continue to get the strong impression that there are fairly few techniques in science , even in biology where it is most obviously applicable, that rely on fractal mathematics to make predictive models of natural behaviour. Frankly, fractals, after all the hype (they do look so pretty and "organic" to journalists, after all) , appear to me to be something of a disappointment
Click to expand...
One contribution of fractals might be the exclusion of some naive heuristics and oversimplifications of intuitive approach consequent on attending to them. They prevent certain errors of simplification, and enforce considerations of complexity. There is a tendency in the hard sciences , if I am not mistaken, to regard ornate or complex or intricate manifestations of stuff as somehow decorative, froth on the wave. Fractals can demonstrate that in many circumstances if you don't know the froth, you don't know the wave - fundamentally.
 
iceaura said:
One contribution of fractals might be the exclusion of some naive heuristics and oversimplifications of intuitive approach consequent on attending to them. They prevent certain errors of simplification, and enforce considerations of complexity. There is a tendency in the hard sciences , if I am not mistaken, to regard ornate or complex or intricate manifestations of stuff as somehow decorative, froth on the wave. Fractals can demonstrate that in many circumstances if you don't know the froth, you don't know the wave - fundamentally.
Click to expand...
I'd be happy to accept that, certainly. But again this seems to be hypothetical , or possible future, uses of fractal mathematics, rather than real current uses, in actual predictive models. I don't see fractal maths in practical use in science in the way that, for instance, complex numbers are used, or symmetry groups, say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top