D&D 5E Scientist background

Paul Farquhar · Jul 1, 2019

Math is often useful for making an objective comparison between the idea and experiment

No, Maths is essential for making an objective comparison between the idea and experiment.

Doing science without maths is like doing carpentry without wood.

Now, there are certainly some scientists who aren't that brilliant at maths, but they still have to use it, even if it's indirectly via the computer.

Paul Farquhar · Jul 1, 2019

jaelis said:
"Simple" to a mathematician or physicist doesn't mean quite the same thing as simple to a layperson though. Maxwell's equations are paragons of simplicity and elegance, but they still involve pretty gnarly vector calculus. (You can simplify them even further using tensor notation, but now you're doing tensor calculus!)

Tensor calculus is just a specialised tool, like a sprig hammer.

Garthanos · Jul 1, 2019

jaelis said:
I bet that not many of them would agree that hammer use is a defining quality of the trade.

Not sure math was being asserted as the defining quality. More as a tool without which they are deficient.

jaelis said:
While a good biologist, say, should have a pretty clear conceptual understanding of what the software is doing, they wouldn't have any reason to delve into the math itself.

Designing your study in the first place and an understanding the results too seems like it takes statistical understanding (our tools only simplify it)

jaelis · Jul 1, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
No, Maths is essential for making an objective comparison between the idea and experiment.

Doing science without maths is like doing carpentry without wood.

Now, there are certainly some scientists who aren't that brilliant at maths, but they still have to use it, even if it's indirectly via the computer.

Hmm. Currently, there is no fossil evidence between a flightless, mouselike mammal and the flying proto-bat that it evolved into. The theory of evolution predicts that intermediate forms existed. If a paleontologist finds a fossil of a flying-squirrel-like animal in a geological layer in between that of the mouse and that of the bat, it would confirm the predictions of theory. Are they using math? Are they not a scientist?

If an entomologist makes a field study in New Guinea and catalogs a new insect species that had not previously been discovered, are they using math? Are they not a scientist?

Going back a ways, when Count Rumford was boring cannons in Bavaria, he noticed that when the boring blade was dull, there was no observable limit to the amount of heat that could be produced, and he realized that was impossible to explain with the caloric theory of heat. Was he using math? Was he doing science?

Fenris-77 · Jul 1, 2019

I like the magical technologist idea, but I'd like to see it done without innate spell casting, odd as that sounds. So, not the artificer I guess. A class that's all MacGuyver making stuff out of magic crystals and bailing wire, and maybe castings spells as lengthy rituals. I can see a home for a class like that in lots of campaigns.

Paul Farquhar · Jul 1, 2019

jaelis said:
Hmm. Currently, there is no fossil evidence between a flightless, mouselike mammal and the flying proto-bat that it evolved into. The theory of evolution predicts that intermediate forms existed. If a paleontologist finds a fossil of a flying-squirrel-like animal in a geological layer in between that of the mouse and that of the bat, it would confirm the predictions of theory.

No it wouldn't. It would support the theory, but it would confirm nothing. You would need some maths to show that there was a causal relationship, rather than co-incidence.

Are they using math? Are they not a scientist?

If they presented their findings as proven, without some kind of mathematical evidence to back it up, then no, they are not a scientist.

If an entomologist makes a field study in New Guinea and catalogs a new insect species that had not previously been discovered, are they using math? Are they not a scientist?

How do they know it's a new species, rather than an outlier of an already known species?

Going back a ways, when Count Rumford was boring cannons in Bavaria, he noticed that when the boring blade was dull, there was no observable limit to the amount of heat that could be produced, and he realized that was impossible to explain with the caloric theory of heat. Was he using math? Was he doing science?

How did he show there was no limit? Answer: he made measurements involving temperature and time. Which are measured with numbers, which make it maths.

Paul Farquhar · Jul 1, 2019

My background is in physical science, but I work in education, and I often find myself banging my head on the desk over reports from so called "educational scientists". It not science, it's just a pile of guesswork with little or no supporting evidence.

jaelis · Jul 1, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
No it wouldn't. It would support the theory, but it would confirm nothing. You would need some maths to show that there was a causal relationship, rather than co-incidence.

What maths are applicable here? Was Darwin doing science when he came up with the theory? What kind of math was he using? Of course, I do agree that one piece of data doesn't confirm the entire theory. But it does confirm that particular prediction of the broader theory.

How do they know it's a new species, rather than an outlier of an already known species?

I don't know, I'm not a biologist. But do you really want to claim that taxonomy was not a science until we had DNA testing or whatever?

How did he show there was no limit? Answer: he made measurements involving temperature and time. Which are measured with numbers, which make it maths.

I suppose you are right here, if your position that anything involving numbers counts as math.

My background is in physical science, but I work in education, and I often find myself banging my head on the desk over reports from so called "educational scientists". It not science, it's just a pile of guesswork with little or no supporting evidence.

While I totally understand that frustration, I don't think pinning it on a lack of math is the right critique. You can use things like p-hacking to generate beautiful "quantitative" support for just about anything. As a practicing research physicist, I maintain that math is a good (even great) tool for science, but not an essential part of it.

Paul Farquhar · Jul 1, 2019

jaelis said:
What maths are applicable here? Was Darwin doing science when he came up with the theory?

Yes. he repeated his observations many many times. I've visited his house and seen some of his research.

What kind of math was he using?

Statistics.

Of course, I do agree that one piece of data doesn't confirm the entire theory. But it does confirm that particular prediction of the broader theory.

"One" is a number. Increase the number and you increase the confidence interval. Maths.

I don't know, I'm not a biologist. But do you really want to claim that taxonomy was not a science until we had DNA testing or whatever?

There was plenty of counting numbers of specimens displaying certain characteristics going on. DNA isn't the only thing that is measurable with maths.

jaelis · Jul 1, 2019

I see, so in its most elementary form, your argument would be that if you observe something once, then you are using math because one is not equal to zero. So if you observe a single event that confirms or denies your hypothesis, then you are using math.

I can't really argue with that, if you are saying we need math to distinguish one from zero or yes from no, then math is an essential part of science. And most other human activities.

While you have the right to assert your preferred definitions, I think I will stick to my own. From what I know, my definitions are more in line with those of other scientists I know, but I haven't made any quantitative study of that so I won't claim that to be a scientific fact