/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10487081]

Is it possible to conceptually understand any model without learning how to do the math?

[Anonymous No.10487083]

>Is it possible to conceptually understand any model without learning how to do the math?
Why don't you try it and find out?

[Anonymous No.10487122]

>>10487081
No, there are plenty of mathematical models which are far beyond words. Take an easy example like string theory. I don't give a shit what you say, conceptualizing 9 spatial dimensions is impossible.

[Anonymous No.10488091]

To a shallow and impractical level, yes it is.

[Anonymous No.10488094]

>>10487122
>conceptualizing 9 spatial dimensions is impossible
true even when you can do the math

[Anonymous No.10488104]

>>10487081
Can you kick a football and know where it'll land without knowing the maths behind it?

[Anonymous No.10488119]

>>10487122
That's because it's horseshit with no foundation in reality

[Anonymous No.10488173]

>>10488104
no

[Anonymous No.10488182]

>>10487081
yes
1+1 = cheatos

[Anonymous No.10488191]

thats what calculus notation offers to average brainlets.

maybe in the future somebody will invent easier notation for advanced physics or algebraic geometry and it will be tought in high school.

[Anonymous No.10488235]

>>10487081
Seeing as every model IS math, no it's not possible

[Anonymous No.10488240]

>>10487081
Yes but math saves a lot of time/awkward wording and most concepts will eventually lead to a lot of math work regardless

[Anonymous No.10489959]

physicists do it all the time lol

[Anonymous No.10491360]

>>10487081
Is it possible to conceptually understand poetry without learning how to do the language it's crafted in?

[Anonymous No.10491442]

>>10491360
Mathematical models are used to represent mechanisms in the world. Conceptual understanding is about understanding those mechanisms, not the model itself.

Poetry however is about language itself, so it's not comparable.

[Anonymous No.10491488]

>>10491442
But how do you understand the concept without placing it in a model?

[Anonymous No.10491606]

>>10491488
If you play around with games like universe sandbox for a while I think you'll have a pretty good understanding of how the force of gravity works, without ever knowing that F=Gmm/r2.

[Anonymous No.10491629]

>>10491606
Ah yes, if only there was a term for a "pretty good understanding" of something based off of observation.

I think it's reasonable to argue that you'd simply be picking up a less precise model of gravity in your head through messing around with universe sandbox.

[Anonymous No.10491645]

Name ONE model that can't be understood by description and analog alone

[Anonymous No.10491646]

>>10487081
Math just reflects how the model functions, so yes.

[Anonymous No.10491647]

>>10488119
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.10491654]

>>10487081
Yes. Michael Faraday discovered key concepts about electricity and magnetism despite having almost no formal education and being almost entirely self-taught. Despite his ground-breaking experiments, Faraday struggled with algebra and thus relied on a close partnership with James Clerk Maxwell to formalize his discoveries.

[Anonymous No.10491659]

>>10491645
Description and analog is a model for understanding.

[Anonymous No.10491681]

>>10491645
I'll offer you a counterquestion as well. Name something that can be understood without models.

[Anonymous No.10492914]

>>10491606
This is because we've developed to model things like that as a survival mechanism. This helps with a system whose components happen to resemble those of our interpreted environment but won't get you very far with anything beyond that, in particular when your intuition starts to let you down (e.g. countability of rationals, well-ordering theorem).