• CanadaPlus
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    22 days ago

    In statistics and with arbitrarily questionable assumptions that might be true, but there’s other math.

    • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      Unfortunately there are many ways one can fool oneself into believing all sorts of asinine things with numbers. That was the point of the lesson: That math is effectively meaningless without an earnest desire to arrive at the correct answer, not just an attempt to confirm what one already believes. This article is actually a great example of that, because it presumes that our mathematical models are definitely correct, which is the farthest thing from the truth. Physics is a really interesting field because it’s constantly discovering odd nuances of our world where our models don’t actually align with reality, giving us the chance to improve them.

      • CanadaPlus
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        21 days ago

        On the contrary, fundamental physics has been completely static for half a century. That doesn’t really have much to do with your main point, though.

        I mean, you’re right in statistics, and statistics comes up constantly, but there’s no way to directly prove there’s only 100 prime numbers, for example. In number theory, there’s absolute truths, and a correct proof will inevitably align with them.