[[I make my living as a mathematician, and the theorems of mathematics are not science: they cannot be falsified by any conceivable observation or experiment because fundamentally they are all tautologies.]]
Theorums aren’t science?
“Mathematicians seek out patterns[9][10] and formulate new conjectures. Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics
(I knopw, I know, Wiki- but ‘all prime numbers are odd numbers’ is a falsifiable assertion- 2 being the number which falsifies the claim
“Many philosophers believe that mathematics is not experimentally falsifiable, and thus not a science according to the definition of Karl Popper.[55] However, in the 1930s Gödel’s incompleteness theorems convinced many mathematicians[who?] that mathematics cannot be reduced to logic alone, and Karl Popper concluded that “most mathematical theories are, like those of physics and biology, hypothetico-deductive: pure mathematics therefore turns out to be much closer to the natural sciences whose hypotheses are conjectures, than it seemed even recently.”[56] Other thinkers, notably Imre Lakatos, have applied a version of falsificationism to mathematics itself.”
“If I am in a scientific field that relies on mathematics (that’s all of them) and if the mathematics is so badly constructed as to produce incorrect evaluations of my data, then my field will be undermined by the defect in the underlying mathematics, just as though the mathematics was a defective microscope or a misaligned magnet.”
http://www.arachnoid.com/is_math_a_science/feedback.html
Seems to me macroevoltuion hypothesis is fileld with mathematical issues- so if mathematics isn’t sicenc,e then obviously the construct of maceroevoltuion is not science because it relies on an unscientific process of mathematics as one iof it’s instruments which is crusial to the foundation
There appears to be an ubmer of proofs in mathematics- as per the following wiki site again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility
You seem to be claiming that super large improbabilities can’t be concvidered impossible because there’;s no way of falsifying whether it is infact completely impossible or not- I’m not sure whether this is true or not- I suspect thsi is simpyl symantics which doesn’t actualyl jive with real life experiences which show that when soemthign is impossible beyond a large improbability number, that it is somethign htat isn’tr goign to happen- (let alone happen trilliosn of times, which woudl be necessary for macroevoltuion throughout the billions of years needed in order forl ife to arise fro mnon life, or even from ‘simple’ life, or even from ‘simpler’ life)
AS metnioned before, Aside from strict falsifiable measures- (as though if soemthign isn’t strictly ‘scientific’ then it can’t be truth’) truths are based on cases presented beyodn reasonable doubts, and htere’s no real reason to rejct a truth based on ovwerwhelming evidences sugfgesting a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ case for soemthing
I weill look more into ‘falsifiability of mathematical probabilites’ later- it woudl seem to me that it woudl be falsifiable, as when a probability is given for soemthign liek poker- the probability of hitting a straight flush on the deal beign somethign like say ‘1 in 500,000’ (or whatever the probability odds are) that IF the reality is thast peopel always hit a straight flush every 500 hands out of 500,000 deals, then the original probvability odds of 1 in 500,000 has b een falsified- the reality beign that 500 in 500,000 deals results in a straight flush- Real world evidence wouldn’t match the mathematicval probability odds, and hterefore the mathematical probability odds woudl be falsified by real world experience-
Poker players make their livign off of odds- they do so becausde it’s a verfiable fact that the odds are slightly in their favor IF they stick to the odds strictly they can make a livign off of poker-
Note, math is NOT my strong point- took me 3 years to getr throguh PRE algebra- they finally just passed me- I draw an almsot blank when face with math- for osem reason- I think I’m allergic to it-
No, mathematics is not science in the Popperian sense, even though we caucus with the sciences, as it were. Science is an end-user of mathematics, and we sometimes get ideas for abstractions to investigate from the sciences, though since the mid-19th century that has happened far less often than an outsider might think, but the method is completely different — hence the strangeness Wigner found in mathematicians having arrived at the things physics needed before the physicists needed them: as an example, all the mathematics Einstein needed to formulate both special and general relativity had already been done, without any regard for possible physical application, by Minkowski and Riemann. Actually, attempts to force mathematics into the pattern of the sciences have, in my view, done great harm to mathematics.
And yes, mathematics is bigger than formal logic (as Goedel’s incompleteness theorem shows).
Your objection that if mathematics is not science, then a scientific model that depends on mathematics, is not science, however, is completely ill founded: marksmanship depends on metallurgy in the sense that the tools of the rifleman are largely made of metal, but that does not mean marksmanship is metallurgy. And, just as if the metallurgy used in making the rifle, cartridge or bullet is defective, the rifleman may find his tools unreliable, so if the mathematics used in making a scientific model is flawed, there may well be problems with the scientific model’s reliability.
Do not fall into the delusion of “scientism” foisted on the world by atheist polemicists: science is not the only reliable way to discover truth, and much trouble has been caused by people who should know better (like Christians) falling into the trap of accepting the notion that it is.
On the other matter, giving a short version of Kalomiros’s argumentation as it bears on the origin of death, I must demure. I would encourage you to read his essay. Yes, it’s 43 pages long, but it’s an easy read, and actually, the origin of death and Christ’s conquest of death, Christ as the Second Adam are all integral to the reading he gives of Genesis. Doing justice to it won’t shorten it that much, will be a great deal of work for me, and will end up giving you something less worth reading than the original essay.