"Infinite reasoning is likewise essential for graph theory. The field had its origins in topology, and it is still relevant there, but it has expanded extraordinarily far in other directions. Graph theory today is exploring the boundaries of finite provability first exposed by Gödel’s incompleteness theorem." (John Stillwell, "Mathematics and Its History", 2010)
"Mathematics is a model of exact reasoning, the most precise branch of human knowledge." (Paul Hartal, "Mathematics and Reality", 2010)
"This is always the case in analogical reasoning: Relations between two dissimilar domains never map completely to one another. In fact, it is often the salient similarities between the base and target domains that provoke thought and increase the usefulness of an analogy as a problem-solving tool." (Robbie T Nakatsu, "Diagrammatic Reasoning in AI", 2010)
"Venn diagramming, it turns out, is a very effective technique for performing syllogistic reasoning. Its chief advantage (over the Euler graph in particular as we noted earlier) is the ability to incrementally add knowledge to the diagram. While an Euler graph has visual power in terms of representing the relations between sets very intuitively, it is impossible to combine more than one piece of information onto a Euler graph. A Venn diagram, on the other hand, easily lends itself to the representation of partial knowledge and can be manipulated to add successively more knowledge to the diagram. This means that when our knowledge of the relations between sets increases, we simply put in more symbols and shadings into the appropriate compartments of the Venn diagram. Thus we are able to accumulate knowledge in a Venn diagram. This capability turns out to be a powerful feature, one that endows Venn diagrams with a more dynamic quality that is sorely lacking in the Euler system." (Robbie T Nakatsu, "Diagrammatic Reasoning in AI", 2010)
"[...] a model is a tool for taking decisions and any decision taken is the result of a process of reasoning that takes place within the limits of the human mind. So, models have eventually to be understood in such a way that at least some layer of the process of simulation is comprehensible by the human mind. Otherwise, we may find ourselves acting on the basis of models that we don’t understand, or no model at all." (Ugo Bardi, "The Limits to Growth Revisited", 2011)
"Graphs are gimmicks, substituting fancy displays for careful analysis and rigorous reasoning. It is basically a trade-off: the snazzier your display, the more you can get away with a crappy underlying analysis. Conversely, a good analysis does not need a fancy graph to sell itself. The best quantitative research has an underlying clarity and a substantive importance whose results are best presented in a sober, serious tabular display. And the best quantitative researchers trust their peers enough to present their estimates and standard errors directly, with no tricks, for all to see and evaluate." (Andrew Gelman et al, "Why Tables Are Really Much Better Than Graphs", Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, Vol. 20(1), 2011)
"It turns out that our knowledge is always too incomplete and our visual data is too noisy and cluttered to be interpreted by deduction. In this situation, the method of reasoning needed to parse a real-world scene must be statistical, not deductive. To implement this form of reasoning, our knowledge of the world must be encoded in a probabilistic form, known as an a priori probability distribution." (David Mumford, ["The Best Writing of Mathematics: 2012"] 2012)
"Mathematical reasoning may be regarded rather schematically as the exercise of a combination of two faculties, which we may call intuition and ingenuity [...] (George B Dyson, "Turing's Cathedral: The Origins of the Digital Universe", 2012)
"The happy coincidences between life’s requirements and nature’s choices of parameter-values might be just a series of flukes, but one could be forgiven for beginning to suspect that something deeper is at work. That suspicion is the first deep root of anthropic reasoning." (Frank Wilczek, "Multiversality", 2013)
What brings us mathematical knowledge? The carriers of mathematical knowledge are proofs, more generally arguments and constructions, as embedded in larger contexts. Mathematicians and teachers of higher mathematics know this, but it should be said. Issues about competence and intuition can be raised as well as factors of knowledge involving the general dissemination of analogical or inductive reasoning or the specific conveyance of methods, approaches or ways of thinking. But in the end, what can be directly conveyed as knowledge are proofs." (Akihiro Kanamori, "Mathematical Knowledge: Motley and Complexity of Proof", Annals of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science Vol. 21, 2013)
"In natural language, even the most carefully chosen words drag along concealed meanings that have the power to manipulate reasoning. [...] Symbols of mathematics too sometimes have concealed meanings, but their purpose is to bring along pure thought. It is possible to learn what a mathematical symbol stands for by context. We learn the meanings of mathematical symbols mostly from their definitions: Mostly, because in formal mathematics not everyone easily grasps definitions that are not linked to the familiar properties of experience." (Joseph Mazur, "Enlightening Symbols: A Short History of Mathematical Notation and Its Hidden Powers", 2014)
"Deductive and inductive reasoning schemas essentially regulate inferences. They tell us what kinds of inferences are valid and what kinds are invalid. […] Dialectical reasoning isn’t formal or deductive and usually doesn’t deal in abstractions. It’s concerned with reaching true and useful conclusions rather than valid conclusions. In fact, conclusions based on dialectical reasoning can actually be opposed to those based on formal logic." (Richard E Nisbett, "Mindware: Tools for Smart Thinking", 2015)
"Mathematics is both abstract and concrete, revealing much of the mental experiment, working with unobserved abstractions and objects, and the current scientific progress depended on the ability to operate precisely with abstractions and force of reasoning; […]" (Octavian Stanasila, Metabolism of Mathematics and Computer Science No. 8, 2015)
"Science is often described as a 'seamless web'. What’s meant by that is that the facts, methods, theories, and rules of inference discovered in one field can be helpful for other fields. And philosophy and logic can affect reasoning in literally every field of science.(Richard E Nisbett, "Mindware: Tools for Smart Thinking", 2015)
"Since we cannot completely eliminate uncertainty, we need to model it. In real life when we are faced with uncertainty, we use plausible reasoning. We adjust our belief about something, based on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of something else." (William M Bolstad & James M Curran, "Introduction to Bayesian Statistics" 3rd Ed., 2017)
"The crucial concept that brings all of this together is one that is perhaps as rich and suggestive as that of a paradigm: the concept of a model. Some models are concrete, others are abstract. Certain models are fairly rigid; others are left somewhat unspecified. Some models are fully integrated into larger theories; others, or so the story goes, have a life of their own. Models of experiment, models of data, models in simulations, archeological modeling, diagrammatic reasoning, abductive inferences; it is difficult to imagine an area of scientific investigation, or established strategies of research, in which models are not present in some form or another. However, models are ultimately understood, there is no doubt that they play key roles in multiple areas of the sciences, engineering, and mathematics, just as models are central to our understanding of the practices of these fields, their history and the plethora of philosophical, conceptual, logical, and cognitive issues they raise." (Otávio Bueno, [in" Springer Handbook of Model-Based Science", Ed. by Lorenzo Magnani & Tommaso Bertolotti, 2017])
"In any analysis of any part of the world, it is mandatory to institute a general reasoning in which the whole - the Absolute - is also included. This is what science scrupulously avoids. Science is all about the parts, and ignoring the whole. Science is non-holistic, which is why it cannot arrive at a grand unified, final theory of everything. From the whole you can get to every part, because the whole defines the parts. If you start with the parts, as science does, you can never get to the whole because the parts are necessarily defined piecemeal, heuristically and with no regard to the whole, since the whole is unknown. A bottom-up approach can never work. Only top-down approaches have any chance of working. Empiricists are always parts people and bottom-up people. Rationalists are holistic and top-down. These are opposite worldviews. The PSR is an explanatory, top-down principle. Randomness is a non-explanatory, bottom-up speculation." (Thomas Stark, "God Is Mathematics: The Proofs of the Eternal Existence of Mathematics", 2018)
"When the scientific question of interest involves retrospective thinking, we call on another type of expression unique to causal reasoning called a counterfactual. […] Counterfactuals are the building blocks of moral behavior as well as scientific thought. The ability to reflect on one’s past actions and envision alternative scenarios is the basis of free will and social responsibility. The algorithmization of counterfactuals invites thinking machines to benefit from this ability and participate in this" (until now) uniquely human way of thinking about the world. " (Judea Pearl & Dana Mackenzie, "The Book of Why: The new science of cause and effect", 2018)
No comments:
Post a Comment