Can we really separate maths and physics? I don’t think so. Also, is empiricism the appropriate way to define sciences? Isn’t that a modern shortsightedness??
Oh yeah I meant to say that some sciences have origins that predate empiricism itself. Astronomy for example. Also, some may argue that not all sciences are rooted on evidence in the same way (e.g. positivism would call psychoanalysis a pseudoscience even though there’re powerful conclusions that were drown without evidence and have helped people).
Actually, all hypothesis start with a certain lack of evidence. Some hold for their own value, as potential explanations… Yes, O am not talking about maths anymore but about all sciences. For example many subatomic particles that are investigated by CERN. That’s why I believe your approach was shortsighted.
Can we really separate maths and physics? I don’t think so. Also, is empiricism the appropriate way to define sciences? Isn’t that a modern shortsightedness??
A modern what?
Oh yeah I meant to say that some sciences have origins that predate empiricism itself. Astronomy for example. Also, some may argue that not all sciences are rooted on evidence in the same way (e.g. positivism would call psychoanalysis a pseudoscience even though there’re powerful conclusions that were drown without evidence and have helped people).
Actually, all hypothesis start with a certain lack of evidence. Some hold for their own value, as potential explanations… Yes, O am not talking about maths anymore but about all sciences. For example many subatomic particles that are investigated by CERN. That’s why I believe your approach was shortsighted.