Glen wrote
> So, if you get a chance Nemo, I want you to translate human and
social
> behaviour to me into an exact mathematical model. When you've done
that,
> we'll get to work on finally measuring comparative linguistics and
after
> that, we'll start devising ways to measure other things like "love"
and
> exactly how many angels there are on the head of a pin. :)
I suspect that by your definition field geology, paleontology,
psychology, and much else besides could also be called unscientific
because they lack precise mathematical modelling. Becker, who won a
Nobel Prize for Economics for his work, actually did write a paper
on "the marginal utility from the consumption of love services",
comparing "the cost and benefit of the investment of labour" in
a "love relationship", in terms of "how long do marriage contracts
last". But true economics still, despite a huge "mathematicisation"
in my world remains far from being a science, whilst field geology
does qualify. In fact, "scientia" as "knowledge" existed long before
any complete mathematical formulation.
This is not the same as saying that probabilistic tools in languages
are not useful. Nicholas Rashevsky in his studies of the uses of
Mathematics in history did some excellent work on the rate of spread
of Agricultural economies across Neolithic Europe, which enables a
great many cultural aspects to be derived. Studies of the
dissemination of innovation also has a clear impact upon the nature
of comp Lx. Glen, mathematics is only a tool that can be used in
certain circumstances. I would agree with Piotr on this one.
Regards
John