this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
11 points (70.4% liked)

Science

3447 readers
116 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] ogmios@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 weeks 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.